Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 5 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc.; Rock-Tenn Converting Co. and Cathy Weinmann v. City of Indianapolis and the City of Indianapolis Public Works, a 19-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
In 2012, the City of Indianapolis amended a contract with the company that provides city residents with waste disposal services. The amendment went above and beyond the provisions of services, however, as it required the construction and maintenance of a $45 million facility. By including provisions related to the design, construction, and maintenance of this new facility, the amendment fell under the purview of section 4 of the Waste Disposal Statute, which requires, among other things, public bidding and public participation in the process. That did not occur. Therefore, the contract is void for failing to comply with the statute.ILB: See this Feb. 11th ILB post for background on the disputed Covanta recycling center contract challenge.
Graphic Packaging International (Graphic Packaging), Rock-Tenn Converting Co. (Rock-Tenn), and Cathy Weinmann (collectively, the Plaintiffs) appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Indianapolis (the City) and the City of Indianapolis Board of Public Works (the Board) (collectively, the Government) on the Plaintiffs’ complaint against the City. The Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by concluding that:
(1) there is no private right of action to raise these claims against the City under
(a) the Waste Disposal Statute;
(b) the Public Lawsuit Statute;2 or
(c) the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act;3
(2) the Plaintiffs do not have standing under
(a) traditional standing analysis; or
(b) the public standing doctrine; and
(3) the contract at issue does not violate the Waste Disposal Statute.
We find that the Plaintiffs have a right of action under the Waste Disposal Statute, that they have standing under the public standing doctrine, and that the contract at issue violates the Waste Disposal Statute as a matter of law. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred by awarding summary judgment in favor of the Government, reverse that judgment, and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.
In Billy Luke v. State of Indiana , a 40-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Brown writes:
In this consolidated appeal, Billy Luke appeals his convictions for three counts of invasion of privacy as class D felonies and stalking as a class C felony, as well as the revocation of his probation. Luke raises seven issues which we consolidate, revise, and restate as:In Michael B. Purdue v. State of Indiana, a 13-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
I. Whether his convictions for invasion of privacy and stalking violate double jeopardy principles;
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of other bad acts;
III. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions for invasion of privacy;
IV. Whether the court abused its discretion in instructing thejury; and
V. Whether the evidence is sufficient to revoke his probation.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *
For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the Dearborn Circuit Court with instructions to vacate Luke’s conviction for stalking as a class C felony, and we affirm Luke’s convictions for invasion of privacy as class D felonies, as well as the revocation of his probation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Riley, J., concurs.
Altice, J., concurs in part and concurs in result as to issue I. [beginning on p. 38] With respect to the first issue, I agree with my colleagues that Luke’s conviction for stalking cannot stand because his dual convictions for stalking and invasion of privacy violated the actual evidence test and, thus, constituted a double jeopardy violation. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s reliance on Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-3(a)(1). This statute is not applicable because the subsequent prosecution for stalking was not “for commission of the same offense” (i.e., invasion of privacy) for which Luke had already been convicted. I.C. § 35-41-4-3(a). These are different statutory offenses and double jeopardy issues arose here only because the State failed to parse the evidence and carefully establish each with different evidence.
The circumstances presented in this case would more likely fall under I.C. § 35-41-4-4 * * *
Michael B. Purdue (“Purdue”) appeals the sentencing order entered upon his plea of guilty to one count of theft as a Level 6 Felony and one count of resisting law enforcement as a Class A Misdemeanor. On appeal, he raises the following restated issue: whether he was denied full credit time for his pre-sentence confinement. We reverse and remand.NFP civil decisions today (4):
NFP criminal decisions today (1):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 24, 2016 11:07 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions