« Courts - Michigan's "Plea for quicker ruling on same-sex marriage" | Main | Ind. Courts - COA: "One-time meth use does not equal neglect" »

Monday, April 07, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (4):

In Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC v. David Morton , a 17-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC (“Sheaff Brock”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of David Morton on Morton’s claims that Sheaff Brock breached its employment agreement with Morton and violated Indiana’s Wage Claims Act. * * *

The trial court did not err when it concluded that Sheaff Brock breached its contract with Morton when it unilaterally applied an amended compensation structure to client accounts already under management. And the trial court did not err when it concluded that Morton’s additional compensation constitutes a wage under the Wage Claims Act. Accordingly, Morton is entitled to attorney’s fees, including appellate attorney’s fees. Finally, the trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of Sheaff Brock on Morton’s constructive fraud claim. Thus, we remand to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Affirmed.

In Umbrella Family Waiver Services, LLC v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration , a 10-page opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:
Umbrella Family Waiver Services, LLC (“Umbrella”), appeals the trial court’s denial of its Verified Petition for Judicial Review. We affirm. * * *

The plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of Indiana Code section 12-15-22-1 provides that if FSSA determines that a provider has violated a statute or rule, it may select termination as a sanction. The statute cannot reasonably be read as stating that every termination is necessarily a sanction. Furthermore, Indiana Code section 12-15-22-1 does not bar FSSA from adding to provider agreements a paragraph allowing either party to terminate the contract without cause. To the contrary, the General Assembly has given FSSA broad authority to prepare provider agreements, as noted above. See Ind. Code § 12-15-11-3. Umbrella has failed to demonstrate that FSSA exceeded its statutory authority.

In In the Matter of: L.P., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, K.K., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, a 6-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
K.K. (“Mother”) appeals the determination that her child, L.P., was a Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”). She presents the sole issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support that determination. We reverse. * * *

Here, our review of the evidence likewise reveals a single use of methamphetamine, outside the presence of the child. The State acknowledges this, but urges that we reach a conclusion opposite that in Perrine because “since Perrine was decided in 2007, methamphetamine use has been recognized as an epidemic.” * * *

The factual finding of an isolated use of methamphetamine, without more, does not support the conclusion of law that L.P. was a CHINS. Reversed.

In Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion, Sr. Judge Shepard writes:
A contention that certain evidence admitted at trial was the product of unreasonable search or seizure, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained, does not ipso facto describe an error vitiating the need for a contemporaneous objection. * * *

Appellant Kevin J. Mamon asserts that the state trooper who stopped him for following too closely in a construction zone did not have reasonable suspicion to do so. He thus says the convictions for offenses like criminal recklessness (speeding off, after the stop, at 80 m.p.h.) must be reversed notwithstanding his failure to raise the issue at trial. * * *

In the current case, as in Brown, there is no claim of evidence fabrication or willful malfeasance on the part of law enforcement. To the contrary, Mamon argues Wilson merely misunderstood the law governing tailgating. Mamon does not dispute the truth of Wilson’s testimony and related exhibits. Like the Supreme Court in Brown, we see no grounds for reversal.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Christian Dailey v. David Building Group (NFP)

North Central Cooperative, Inc. v. John R. Garrison (NFP)

Andre Botley v. Dilmar Sanchez (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

Trena Marie Gagliardo v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lakila Gill v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 7, 2014 01:42 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions