Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 3 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G., a 4-page opinion on a petition for rehearing, Judge Riley writes:
In the instant case, appellant-respondent, A.N. appealed the trial court’s order of contempt, asserting that the trial court improperly acted as advocate for the appellee-petitioner, K.G., thereby violating her due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Affirming the trial court, we concluded that A.N.’s due process rights had not been violated. Additionally, in a footnote, we noted that A.N. had waived her challenge to the twenty-eight year extension of K.G.’s protective order because the record indicated that she had expressly agreed to “an extension of the protective order.” A.N. v. K.G., 3 N.E.3d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).In Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne, a 33-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
Now, A.N. petitions for rehearing, arguing that, while she had “no objection to the extension” of the protective order because of a new sentence she had incurred, she did not agree to the specific term imposed by the trial court. (Transcript p. 80). We grant A.N.’s petition for rehearing for the limited purpose to review the trial court’s decision to extend the protective order for twenty-eight years. * * *
Absent findings in the present case, we find that the twenty-eight year extension of the protective order is unreasonable. However, because A.N. agreed to an extension, we remand to the trial court to determine a reasonable extension of K.G.’s protective order in accordance with the instructions in this opinion.
From 1994 until his retirement in 2008, Appellant-Plaintiff Jeffrey Miller (“Miller”) was the president of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana (“JACI”). After his retirement, Miller acted as president of the Experiential Learning and Entrepreneurship Federation (“ELEF”), which is separate from but works with JACI. From approximately August of 2009 until late January or early February of 2010, Miller negotiated with the City of Indianapolis (the “City”) regarding a potential employment opportunity in the Mayor’s Office. Miller was subsequently notified that he would not be offered the negotiated position.In State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk , a 16-page split opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:
On March 31, 2010, Miller, along with his wife, Appellant-Plaintiff Cynthia Miller (“Cynthia”), filed suit against numerous parties, including Appellees-Defendants the Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc. (“CICF”) and Brian Payne (“Payne”), whom they sued both individually and in his capacity as President and CEO of CICF, alleging, among other things, defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. The instant appeal concerns only Miller’s and Cynthia’s (collectively “the Millers”) claims against CICF and Payne. CICF and Payne filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on CICF’s and Payne’s motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CICF and Payne. On appeal, the Millers contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of CICF and Payne. We affirm. * * *
In sum, we conclude that summary judgment was proper on each of Miller’s tort claims. Summary judgment was also proper on Miller’s civil conspiracy claim and Cynthia’s loss of consortium claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of CICF and Payne.
Community corrections officers searched home detention participant Jordan Sullivan’s residence and found contraband in the bedroom of his roommate Brishen Vanderkolk. Upon being charged with several offenses, Vanderkolk filed a motion to suppress. Evidence at the hearing showed that Sullivan had signed a waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights before beginning home detention and that the officers searched his residence to ensure he was complying with the program. The officers did not testify as to any reports of suspicious activity. The trial court granted the motion to suppress.NFP civil opinions today (2):
Caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court as well as our Indiana courts leads us to conclude that Sullivan did not completely waive his Fourth Amendment rights. Because the Fourth Amendment required reasonable suspicion for the search, we affirm the court’s grant of Vanderkolk’s suppression motion. * * *
Because the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion, we conclude that Vanderkolk’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. * * *
We therefore affirm the suppression.
BAILEY, J., concurs in result with separate opinion.
KIRSCH, J., dissents without opinion.
NFP criminal opinions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 11, 2014 11:15 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions