« Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending February 26, 2016 | Main | Ind. Decisions - Federal Judge Pratt rules against State of Indiana's efforts to withhold federal funds from groups from bringing Syrian refugees into the state »
Monday, February 29, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 opinion(s) today (and 18 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (4):
In Edward Skillman v. Ivy Tech Community College, an 11-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Edward Skillman appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ivy Tech Community College (“Ivy Tech”) on Skillman’s claim under the Indiana Wage Payment Act (“WPA”), Indiana Code Chapter 22-2-5. We affirm.In Town of West Terre Haute, Indiana v. Jody Roach, a 13-page opinion, Sr. Judge Shepard writes:
The sole restated issue we need address is whether Ivy Tech was governed by the overtime compensation provisions of the Indiana Minimum Wage Law (“MWL”), Indiana Code Chapter 22-2-2. * * *
Ivy Tech is not an “employer” for purposes of the MWL because it is “subject to” FLSA requirements, even if Skillman cannot personally enforce FLSA requirements against Ivy Tech. Therefore, Skillman was not entitled to overtime compensation from Ivy Tech under the MWL and he has no cause of action under the WPA. We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Ivy Tech.
The Town of West Terre Haute discharged its employee Jody Roach in the course of addressing an audit of the Clerk-Treasurer’s office. The trial court hearing Roach’s suit against the Town and other government actors granted summary judgment to all defendants except the Town, which now appeals. We reverse and remand. * * *In William Cox v. State of Indiana, a 5-page opinion involving a pro se appellant, Judge Pyle writes:
We agree with the Town that there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in its favor. The court erred by denying the Town’s motion on this point.
Appellant/Petitioner, William Cox (“Cox”), appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred when it failed to transfer his petition to the State Public Defender’s Office after he requested representation by the Public Defender and attached an affidavit of indigency to his petition. We agree that the post-conviction court’s failure to transfer the petition to the State Public Defender’s Office was reversible error, and we reverse and remand with instructions for the post-conviction court to transfer the petition.Brice Hinton v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Brice Hinton appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication that endangers a person. We affirm. * * *NFP civil decisions today (5):
While there is no allegation Hinton pointed the bow and arrow at anyone, the State is not required to prove “actual harm or injury occur[red]” to satisfy the element of endangerment. Davis, 13 N.E.3d at 503. We hold because Hinton was in close proximity to others and had the bow and arrow in a position from which he could immediately shoot the weapon, the State provided sufficient evidence he endangered other people while publicly intoxicated. See, e.g., Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 908 (Ind. 1995) (“the brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of bodily injury to others, regardless whether the weapon is loaded”). This is not to say mere possession of a bow and arrow would satisfy the endangerment element of the statute; instead, what is important is the state of the bow and the arrow at the time of police intervention. Hinton’s argument to the contrary is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses).
NFP criminal decisions today (13):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 29, 2016 12:58 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions