Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 18 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Indiana Area Foundation of the United Methodist Church, Inc., d/b/a United Methodist Church, Bishop Michael Coyner, Ann Glass, and Robert Ostermeier v. Lynn Snyder, a 13-page opinion that the ILB can't begin to summarize, Judge Barnes writes:
The Indiana Area Foundation of the United Methodist Church, Inc., d/b/a United Methodist Church (“the Church”), Bishop Michael Coyner, Reverend Ann Glass, and Reverend Robert Ostermeier (collectively “the Appellants”) appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment on Reverend Lynn Snyder's defamation claim. Reverend Snyder cross-appeals the trial court's decision granting the Appellants' motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *In Max H. Bonecutter v. Discover Bank, a 17-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
The Appellants have established that they were entitled to summary judgment on Reverend Snyder's defamation claim, and we remand for the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appellants on that claim. Further, Reverend Snyder has not established that summary judgment was improperly granted on his breach of contract claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Max H. Bonecutter, pro se, appeals a small claims court's judgment in favor of Discover Bank, a Delaware Corporation. Bonecutter raises several issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the court erred in ruling in favor of and entering judgment for Discover. We affirm.In State of Indiana v. Stephen Alter , an 11-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
The State of Indiana appeals the trial court's grant of a motion to suppress filed by Stephen Alter. The State raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. We affirm. * * *NFP civil opinions today (5):
Based upon the testimony presented at the suppression hearing, we conclude that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain Alter for investigatory purposes under the Fourth Amendment at the time Officer Neargardner directed Alter to open the smaller bag and to give him anything illegal or give him the marijuana. * * *
Regardless of the language of Ind. Code § 14-22-39-3, the conservation officers were not permitted to detain or seize Alter in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
NFP criminal opinions today (13):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 31, 2011 11:41 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions