« Ind. Decisions - "Indiana AG says ruling on same-sex parent birth certificate issue creates confusion" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today, re threats on Facebook wall - Posner »
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 10 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (2):
In Town of Knightstown v. Dudley Wainscott , an 18-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
In this interlocutory appeal, the Town of Knightstown (“Town”) appeals the trial court’s partial denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding a claim by Dudley Wainscott (“Wainscott”). On cross-appeal, Wainscott appeals the trial court’s partial grant of the Town’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *In Christopher A. Neeley v. State of Indiana, a 16-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Wainscott substantially complied with the ITCA notice requirements, and the trial court erred when it granted the Town’s motion for summary judgment on his negligence and equity claims. The trial court properly denied summary judgment on Wainscott’s nuisance claim, but it erred when it denied summary judgment on Wainscott’s breach of contract claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Christopher A. Neeley appeals his convictions for intimidation as a level 6 felony and resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor. Neeley raises two issues, one of which we find dispositive and revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting officer testimony. We reverse. * * *NFP civil decisions today (3):
Ind. Code § 34-28-5-3 gives an officer the authority to detain a person who the officer believes in good faith has committed an infraction for “a time sufficient” to inform the person of the allegation, obtain the person’s identification, and allow the person to execute a notice to appear. A stop predicated on a traffic violation becomes an unlawful and unreasonable seizure if it is “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 (internal quotations and brackets omitted). We find that, in each instance of charged criminal conduct, such conduct occurred well after the stop had progressed from what would be a lawful traffic detention to an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, even if the stop constituted a lawful traffic detention, our conclusion would be the same, that the court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the relevant officer testimony.
NFP juvenile and criminal decisions today (7):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 16, 2017 11:40 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions