Monday, August 11, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 17 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In L.C. Westervelt, Margaret Fox, Joe Dan Trigg, Attorney-in-Fact and Trustee for Lillian Guild, Marilyn Guild, Ramah Lee Jones, Janice Trigg, et al. v. George Woodcock III, d/b/a West Drilling Company, a 14-page decision with two opinions, Judge May writes:
Carolyn Sue Stinson appeals a summary judgment that determined her mineral interest had lapsed. As she paid taxes on it, there was no lapse. Reversed and remanded.In Marcus Richardson v. Wendy Knight , a 4-page opinion involving a pro se appellant, Judge May concludes:
KIRSCH, J., concurs.
BAILEY, J., concurs in result with separate opinion. [that begins, at p. 10] The majority in this case concludes that Stinson paid ad valorem taxes on royalties she received from her mineral interest in land, and the payment of these taxes had the effect of tolling the Dormant Mineral Act’s (“the Act”) twenty-year period requiring reversion of an unused mineral interest. The majority accordingly reverses the trial court’s decision finding that Stinson’s interest had reverted to Woodcock. While I agree with the majority’s result, I disagree with the majority’s construction and application of the Act. I write separately to explain my disagreement with the majority’s rationale.
As Richardson’s petition attacks the validity of his conviction and sentence, it falls within Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) and must be transferred to the sentencing court. See Miller v. Lowrance, 629 N.E.2d 846, 847 (Ind. 1994), reh’. denied. The trial court did not err when it transferred Richardson’s petition to the sentencing court, and accordingly we affirm.In Dwight Hayes v. State of Indiana is a 6-page opinion by Judge Barnes, affirming the trial court's denial of a proposed jury instruction.
In Colton Milam v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:
Prosecuting and convicting Milam for being intoxicated, in a pulled-over car, while arguing with Webb or Officer Esteb does not reach the level of disturbing the peace, harassment, annoyance, or alarm and therefore does not meet the requirements of the public intoxication statute.NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (14):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 11, 2014 01:17 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions