« Courts - "High Court OKs Sales Of Violent Video Games To Kids" | Main | Courts - Today SCOTUS grants cert in Illinois Supreme Court confrontation clause case; Idaho CWA case »

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In SJS Refractory Co., LLC, et al. v. Empire Refractory Sales, Inc., a 20-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:

SJS Refractory Co., LLC, (“SJS”), Patrick M. Johnson, (“Johnson”), and Patrick Salwolke (“Salwolke”), (collectively “the Appellants”), appeal the trial court’s judgment and award of damages and attorney fees in favor of Empire Refractory Sales, Inc., (“Empire”). The Appellants raise seven issues, which we consolidate and restate as: I. Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment including damages and attorney fees in favor of Empire on its conversion claim; II. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages on Empire’s breach of fiduciary duty claim; and III. Whether the trial court erred in awarding Empire attorney fees as a sanction pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a calculation of damages consistent with this opinion.
In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.L., et al.; F.L. and C.B. v. I.D.C.S., a 10-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
F.L. (“Father”) and C.B. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal the trial court's orders terminating their parental rights to their six children. Procedurally, they raise one threshold issue: whether the “Notice of Intent to Appeal” they filed within thirty days of the judgments is sufficient to have initiated the appeal in a timely fashion. Substantively, they raise three issues which we consolidate and restate as one: whether the evidence was sufficient to support termination of their parental rights to each of their children. Concluding the appeal was not timely initiated, we dismiss. * * *

Parents argue their Notices of Intent to Appeal are “functionally equivalent” to the required Notice of Appeal and, though not stating so specifically, apparently argue their appeal should be considered timely as initiated on the date those Notices were filed. * * *

Parents also argue the notice of appeal is akin to the Indiana Tort Claims Act's notice of tort claim requirements. * * *

[W]e do not agree with Parents that their Notices of Intent to Appeal were “functionally equivalent” to a Notice of Appeal. The filing of those Notices did not, therefore, serve to initiate the Parents' appeal on the date of filing. The termination orders in this case were issued on August 20 and August 23, 2010. Thirty days from these dates was September 20 and September 22, 2010, respectively. The Notice of Appeal was filed on September 23, 2010. Because Parents did not file a timely notice of appeal, they have forfeited their right to appeal. * * *

Parents' Notice of Appeal was untimely and their appeal from the termination of their parental rights is therefore dismissed.

NFP civil opinions today (5):

Jane Gonzales, et al. v. Mike Fitousis, et al. (NFP)

Thomas Lee Keller, et al. . Daniel Ray Keller (NFP)

Mark Wheatley v. Utility Trailers of Indianapolis, Inc. (NFP)

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.D.; A.D. v. IDCS (NFP)

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Q.W., et al.; J.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Winston D. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Rodney L. Houser v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ponie Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 28, 2011 11:06 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions