Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 13 NFP)
For publication opinions today (5):
In Crystal Valley Sales, Inc., Charles Kline, and Nancy Kline v. Jonathan Anderson, National Sales Company, Inc., Rodger Anderson, Camco Manufacturing, and Norm Geible , an 18-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Crystal Valley Sales, Inc. (“Crystal Valley”) appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its civil conspiracy claims against National Sales Company, Inc., Rodger Anderson, Camco Manufacturing, Inc., and Norm Geible (collectively “Appellees”) for failure to state a claim. Crystal Valley contends that its amended complaint sufficiently states a claim against Appellees for civil conspiracy, and Appellees assert that a civil conspiracy allegation is insufficient absent an allegation of an underlying tort. Finding that Crystal Valley’s amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege an underlying tort against Appellees, we affirm. * * *In In Re: The Guardianship of C.R. and A.R., E.R. v. M.S. and D.S. , a 10-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
In sum, Crystal Valley’s amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege against Appellees a recognized, underlying tort to accompany its civil conspiracy allegations as required by Indiana law. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 12(B)(6) and 12(C). Consequently, we affirm.
Appellant E.R. is the maternal grandfather and adoptive father of minor children C.R. and A.R (collectively “the Children”). Appellees are the paternal grandparents of the Children (the “Grandparents”). The trial court awarded Grandparents visitation rights and, upon Grandparents’ motion, ordered that a visitation evaluation be conducted. E.R. appeals the trial court’s order on the visitation evaluation, arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to order the evaluation. E.R. does not contest the trial court’s decision regarding the parameters of the visitation granted to Grandparents. Finding that the trial court did not have the authority to order a visitation evaluation, we reverse. * * *In Eddie G. Love v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion with an appellant pro sec, Sr. Judge Darden writes:
Accordingly, we find that Grandparents did not have standing to petition the trial court for a parenting time evaluation and that the trial court did not have the authority to order such an evaluation sua sponte. Because there was no authority to order the evaluation, we need not address whether the evaluation was in the best interest of the Children. We reverse the portions of the trial court’s March 20, 2014 order concerning the visitation study (Sections 16 through 23). The provisions of the order concerning Grandparents visitation time with the Children are unaffected by this decision.
Eddie G. Love appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ ofDerrick Weedman v. State of Indiana
habeas corpus. Concluding that the trial court did not err by denying Love’s request, a claim which is barred by res judicata, we affirm. * * *
In Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 268-69 (Ind. 2014), the Supreme Court discussed the imposition of reasonable restrictions, which may be imposed on any abusive litigant, including those who proceed pro se, and set forth examples of those restrictions. In the event Love continues to challenge his conviction at the trial court level, the Zavodnik opinion may be a helpful resource for the trial court.
NFP civil opinions today (5):
NFP criminal opinions today (8):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 26, 2014 11:20 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions