Thursday, October 06, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 3 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In In Re Petition in Opposition to Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. The City of Evansville , a 17-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
Appellants-Petitioners (hereinafter “Remonstrators”) appeal the trial court's order denying their motion to correct error and dismissing their challenge to the proposed annexation of certain parcels of land by Appellee-Respondent the City of Evansville (“the City”). We affirm.In Andrew Kesling v. Dorothy Kesling, Adam Kesling and Emily Kesling , an 8-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Andrew Kesling (“Husband”) appeals a judgment approving an arbitrator’s award that required him to make a shareholder distribution from funds of a closely-held corporation as requested by Emily Kesling and Adam Kesling (collectively, “Siblings”) after Siblings intervened in the dissolution of Husband’s marriage to Dorothy Kesling (“Wife”). We reverse.In Catherine A. Littleton v. State of Indiana, a 19-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Husband raises three issues for review, one of which we find dispositive: whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority.
Catherine A. Littleton was charged with one count each of Criminal Confinement, as a Class C felony, Neglect of a Dependent, as a Class D felony, and Battery, as a Class B misdemeanor. In this discretionary interlocutory appeal, Littleton challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss the charging information on two grounds. Littleton contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to dismiss the charges against her because her acts were privileged by her qualified immunity as a teacher in loco parentis. She also argues that, in light of the trial court's holding that her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), dismissal of the charges was required under the rule announced in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).NFP civil opinions today (2):
The State contends that we do not have jurisdiction to consider Littleton's qualified immunity argument, that in any event the trial court properly declined to dismiss the charges against her, but that the trial court nonetheless abused its discretion when it concluded that Littleton's Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
Finding that we have jurisdiction to consider the question of qualified immunity, and finding that issue dispositive, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for dismissal of the charges.
NFP criminal opinions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 6, 2011 12:36 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions