« Ind. Gov't. - Bosma wants to close ethics waiver loophole for certain public employees leaving state government | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Very disappointing news for anyone trying to watch the budget committee videocast »
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Sharon Handy v. P.C, Building Materials, Inc., PC Properties, Llc, David A. Stemler, and Karen L. Stemler, a 16-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Sharon Handy appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of P.C. Building Materials, Inc., PC Properties, LLC, David A. Stemler, and Karen L. Stemler (collectively “PC”) on Handy’s negligence claim against PC. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of PC. Concluding that genuine issues of material fact remain for determination by a jury, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. * * *In Phillip D. Mundy and Merle Jost v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Here, reasonable people could differ as to whether the granite countertops represented a known or obvious danger to Handy. Moreover, the obviousness of any danger does not resolve the issue, see Rhodes, 805 N.E.2d at 388, as questions remain whether PC: (1) knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have realized that the granite involved an unreasonable risk of harm to Handy; (2) should have expected that she would not realize the unreasonable risk of harm of moving, pulling, or tipping the granite forward; and (3) failed to exercise reasonable care to protect her against the danger. In short, assuming that Handy was an invitee on the premises, genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether PC breached its duty of care to her. * * *
Reversed and remanded.
MATHIAS, J., concurs.
RILEY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. [that begins, on p. 15] While I agree with the majority’s conclusion regarding the extent of the designated evidence available for our review, I respectfully dissent from its conclusion that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to Handy’s status on the premises and PC’s corresponding duty of care. Although the majority could “affirmatively conclude that Handy was not a trespasser,” based on “the limited record,” it could not determine “as a matter of law whether Handy had an implied invitation to enter onto the premises, or merely permission to do so.”
Phillip D. Mundy (“Mundy”) and Merle Jost (“Jost”) (collectively, “the Defendants”) were charged with Class D felony conspiracy to commit dealing in marijuana; Mundy was also charged with Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. The Defendants filed motions to suppress certain evidence, which the trial court denied. The Defendants appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order and present two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the police violated the Defendants’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding that the actions of the police in this case were unreasonable under the circumstances, and therefore violative of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, we reverse and remand. * * *NFP civil opinions today (2):
Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, we conclude that the conduct of the police detectives was not reasonable. The detectives’ intrusion onto the property at issue therefore ran afoul of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The search warrant that was subsequently issued based upon what the detectives observed on the property was therefore also improper. For all of these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Defendants’ motions to suppress, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 19, 2014 10:53 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions