Monday, August 29, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 2 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (2):
In City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, Mayor of Lawrenceburg in his official capacity, Common Council of the City of Lawrenceburg in their official capacities v. Franklin County, Indiana, et al. , a 5-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
In 2015, Appellees-Plaintiffs Franklin County and the Franklin County Board of Commissioners (collectively, “Franklin”) filed a complaint in Franklin Circuit Court alleging breach of contract by Appellants-Defendants the City of Lawrenceburg, the mayor of Lawrenceburg, and the common council of Lawrenceburg (collectively, “the City”). The City filed a motion, pursuant to Trial Rule 76(A), requesting a change of venue from Franklin County to Dearborn County. The trial court denied the City’s motion. On appeal, the City contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for change of venue. We reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand with instructions. * * *In Terex-Telelect, Inc. v. Anthony Wade, a 13-page opinion, Judge Altice writes:
Regardless of whether Franklin County is a preferred venue, its status as such is trumped by Trial Rule 76(A), which states explicitly that a motion requesting a change of venue “shall be granted only upon a showing that the county where suit is pending is a party.” That is clearly the case here. Accordingly, the trial court was required to grant the City’s motion and erred in failing to do so. * * *
[The City also argues] that Dearborn County is the appropriate venue because the City is located in Dearborn County, making it a preferred venue. However, Rule 76(D) sets forth specific procedural steps for change of venue determinations and preferred venue is not a requirement. Accordingly, it is up to the parties on remand to determine a new venue in accordance with Rule 76(D).
In a previous appeal in these proceedings, this court reversed a jury verdict in favor of Terex-Telelect, Inc. (Terex) based on an erroneous jury instruction. See Wade v. Terex-Telelect, Inc., 966 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. (Terex I). Specifically, the majority held that evidence of Terex’s compliance with American National Standards Institute Standard A92.2 (ANSI A92.2) in the design of the bucket at issue was irrelevant to the defect alleged by Wade, and thus, did not support the giving of a jury instruction regarding a rebuttable presumption that the bucket at issue was not defective. The case was remanded to the trial court.NFP civil decisions today (0):
In advance of the third trial, Wade filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of Terex’s compliance with ANSI A92.2 and the design specifications found in ANSI A92.2. The trial court granted Wade’s motion, finding that this court’s decision in Terex I established the law of the case with regard to relevancy and therefore required such exclusion. Terex moved to certify the matter for interlocutory appeal, which request the trial court granted. This court accepted jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2015. There are two issues presented for our review:
1. Under the law of the case doctrine, does this court’s prior opinion in Terex I require exclusion of evidence pertaining to ANSI A92.2 and Terex’s compliance therewith in a subsequent trial?
2. Is evidence relating to ANSI A92.2 and Terex’s compliance therewith relevant?
NFP criminal decisions today (2):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 29, 2016 11:04 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions