« Ind. Decisions - One Indiana decision today from 7th Circuit, a mea culpa | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Two interesting state finance stories today [Updated] »

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 11 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al. , a 15-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School (“SOS”) appeals the trial court's granting of the motion to dismiss SOS's complaint filed by Fort Wayne Community Schools and the Fort Wayne Community Schools Board of School Trustees (collectively “FWCS”). We affirm.

The restated issues before us are: I. whether FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst High School (“Elmhurst”) is an action subject to judicial review as potentially violating the Indiana Constitution; and II. whether that decision is subject to judicial review as an allegedly arbitrary and capricious governmental agency action. * * *

SOS has failed to state a claim that it is entitled to relief for either a violation of the Indiana Constitution by FWCS or under a theory of a “common law” right to judicial review of FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst. We affirm the trial court's granting of FWCS's motion to dismiss. Affirmed.

DARDEN, J., concurs.
RILEY, J., concurs in result with separate opinion. [which begins, at p. 14 of 15] Although I agree with the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's motion to dismiss, I respectfully disagree with the majority's analysis. Whereas the majority embarks on a lengthy constitutional evaluation, I would declare SOS's appeal to be moot. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that no effective relief can be rendered to the parties.

In Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana, a 9-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Mickey Cundiff (“Cundiff”) was convicted of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He appeals his conviction raising only the following argument: whether the trial court erred when it denied his Criminal Rule 4(B) motion for discharge. Concluding that Cundiff was not entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated cause, we affirm. * * *

In this case, Cundiff was incarcerated for a probation violation in a separate cause and possibly a battery charge, but Cundiff was not incarcerated on the pending charges because he had been released on his own recognizance. See Tr. pp. 21, 24-25. For this reason, we conclude that the Criminal Rule 4(B) seventy-day deadline does not apply to the circumstances presented in this appeal. And therefore trial court did not err when it denied Cundiff's motion for discharge.

NFP civil opinions today (6):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.H. and J.H.; J.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)

James Hatala v. Sally Hatala (NFP)

SB Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply, Inc. (NFP)

KJE, LLC v. RAC Holdings, Inc., and Rex Carroll (NFP)

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.E., et al.; S.E. v. IDCS (NFP)

Paternity of T.F.; D.F. v. J.W. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Elliott McKinley Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jack Edwards, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert L. Frank, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 23, 2011 11:11 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions