Thursday, April 18, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 10 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In TPUSA, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, a 10-page opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:
TPUSA owns and manages call centers around the country. It is owned by Teleperformance Group Inc., a Florida holding company. In 2009, TPUSA operated a call center in Fishers, Indiana. After September 30, 2009, TPUSA no longer had employees in Indiana, and the Fishers facility officially closed on October 31, 2009. TPUSA made contributions to the Department for unemployment insurance for its employees until the facility closed. TPUSA submitted its 2009 fourth quarter wage report showing that it had no employees and had paid no wages. Having no operations or employees in the State of Indiana in 2010, TPUSA did not file any quarterly payroll reports with the Department for that year. * * *In William Wressell v. R.L. Turner Corporation, a 16-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the LALJ erred by determining that TPUSA owes $125,666.33 in unemployment insurance contributions, interest, and penalties for 2010 when TPUSA had no employees in Indiana in 2010 and paid no wages in Indiana in 2010. Reversed and remanded.
Between September 15, 2009, and June 20, 2010, William Wressell was employed by R.L. Turner Corporation (“RLTC”) as a concrete foreman and worked on two of RLTC’s construction projects. Both projects were public works projects subject to the Indiana Common Construction Wage Act (“CCWA”), and Wressell was classified and paid as a skilled cement mason pursuant to the CCWA. Wressell eventually brought suit against RLTC, claiming that he was significantly underpaid by RLTC for his work. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RLTC, and Wressell now appeals. Wressell argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the designated evidence shows that much of the work he did for RLTC was that of either a skilled carpenter or a skilled laborer, work that, overall, entitled him to a higher wage and higher fringe benefits. RLTC responds to these arguments and cross-appeals, contending that Wressell has flagrantly disregarded the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure such that it is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Concluding that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of RLTC, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. We further conclude that RLTC is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.In Casey Walker v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
In this case, appellant-defendant Casey Walker was convicted of class A felony Manufacturing Methamphetamine1 and sentenced to thirty years of incarceration. Evidence presented at Walker’s trial included evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a residence that police officers conducted after obtaining the consent of Walker’s wife, an occupant of the residence, and Walker’s mother, the owner and an occupant of the residence.NFP civil opinions today (2):
On appeal, Walker argues that the State failed to establish an exception to the warrant requirement because his mother is incapable of giving consent in that she suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Walker requests that the evidence seized from the search be suppressed, and consequently, his conviction reversed.
We conclude that Walker has failed to establish that his mother was incompetent to give consent to search the residence. Moreover, there was undisputed testimony at trial that Walker’s wife gave verbal consent to search the residence, and Walker points to no evidence that he explicitly told the police that they could not enter his residence. Accordingly, we find that the police had consent to search the residence, and the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NFP criminal opinions today (8):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 18, 2013 10:29 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions