« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court continues record output of decisions - including foodstamp and pollution exclusion opinions. | Main | Environment - "Despite repeated losses in the Supreme Court, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have yet to make any serious effort to delineate the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction." »
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 5 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In New Albany Historic Preservation Commission and City of New Albany v. Bradford Realty, Inc. , a 22-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellants-Defendants, the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission and the City of New Albany (collectively, the NAHPC), appeal the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Plaintiff, Bradford Realty, Inc. (Bradford), concluding that Bradford had not received due process when the NAHPC designated its property to be located in a historic district. We reverse in part and affirm in part. * * *In Lawane Chaney on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., a 4-page opinion on rehearing from order on motion for appellate fees and costs, Judge Najam writes:
[Issues] (1) Whether the trial court erred by declaring the City of New Albany's ordinance designating Bradford's property located within the historic district as an adjudicative act instead of a legislative act and therefore requiring actual notice of the potential designation pursuant to the United States Constitution's due process provision; and
(2) Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Bradford was not required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness when it replaced the property's original siding with vinyl siding.
On Cross-Appeal, Bradford presents us with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Bradford did not have a claim for inverse condemnation. * * *
Based on the foregoing, we find that Bradford was not entitled to actual notice of the potential designation of the historic district and that Bradford was required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness when it replaced the property's original siding with vinyl siding. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bradford and grant summary judgment on these grounds to NAHPC.
Also, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Bradford's request for summary judgment on his claim for inverse condemnation.
MATHIAS, J. concurs
FRIEDLANDER, J. dissents with separate opinion [that begins, at p. 19 of 22] I agree with the Majority that Bradford Realty's notice that this property was to be designated as located within a historic district comported with due process principles. I also agree that the trial court erred in concluding that Bradford had a claim for inverse condemnation. I respectfully dissent, however, from the conclusion that the trial court erred in ruling that Bradford was not required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) when it replaced the original siding with vinyl siding.
Having given thorough consideration due each of Weldy’s contentions on rehearing, we conclude that he is correct on two points. But, considering all of the record, those errors are insignificant and do not alter our ultimate determination in the Order.NFP civil opinions today (4):
NFP criminal opinions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 22, 2012 02:13 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions