Thursday, June 16, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 9 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In Town of Reynolds v. Board of Commissioners of White County and Certain Identified Landowners Remonstrating Against Ordinance No. 2014-09-02EX-2, a 13-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
In January of 2015, Appellant-Defendant the Town of Reynolds (the “Town”) adopted an annexation ordinance through which it sought to annex two parcels of land. The Town, however, failed to include certain contiguous county roads in the annexation ordinance as required by statute. Appellee-Plaintiff the Board of Commissioners for White County (the “County”) subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Town’s failure to comply with the relevant statute rendered the annexation ordinance void.In William R. Dixon v. Indiana Department of Correction, an 11-page opinion involving a pro se appellant, Judge Brown writes:
After determining that the Town’s failure to comply with the relevant statute did in fact render the annexation ordinance void, the trial court rendered a declaratory judgment in favor of the County. The Town appeals from this judgment. We affirm.
William R. Dixon appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). He raises four issues which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the DOC. We affirm. * * *In Byron Etter v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Dixon argues that his classification as a sex offender is ex post facto punishment which he states alters his “punishment phase, restrictions, and registration requirements, which includes length of time, SOMM program, where one could live and work” and that he will experience “a new social stigma which will weight [sic] heavier on Dixon’s mental anguish than it would as being seen by society or his peers as an ex-violent offender, rather than being seen as SO/ZSO.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. He asserts that his claim is ripe for review in that he is “being harmed presently by mental anguish, defamation of character, and a possible physical harm within a prison setting.” Id. at 16.
The restated issue is whether the special judge properly denied Etter’s motion to dismiss because the trial court did not “goad” Etter into moving for a mistrial. * * *NFP civil decisions today (5):
Our review of the record, including the audio recording of the trial, reveals that, although the trial court was frustrated with defense counsel and made inappropriate comments, there is no evidence she intended to goad Etter into requesting a mistrial. Although we do not condone the trial court’s comments, we cannot say they were so damaging to Etter as to necessitate a mistrial.
NFP criminal decisions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 16, 2016 01:04 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions