« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court rules on future income as a divisible marital asset | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit rules on plea waivers »

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues a variety of opinions today

The Court of Appeals has issued eight decisions today, including Porter Development, LLC and Eagle Services Corporation v. First National Bank of Valparaiso, where Judge Riley, writing for the majority, and Judge Mathias, in dissenting in part, disagree over the meaning of the term "entitled" in IC 28-9-5-3:

If a depository financial institution pays the funds to the court, the depository financial institution is entitled to recover and collect the costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the depository financial institution in the interpleader action.
In Ric Floyd and Sue Floyd v. John M. Inskeep and Deb Inskeep, the Court, in a decision written by Judge Bailey, reverses a trial court judgment quieting title in favor of Appellees-Plaintiffs John M. and Deb Inskeep, in a boundary line dispute.

Two other civil decisions today involve family trusts and child support.

The Court issued four criminal law rulings. In Agnes Murphy v. State of Indiana, Judge May writes:

Agnes Murphy was charged with unauthorized receipt from a voter of a ballot prepared by the voter for voting, a Class D felony, after she accepted a ballot in a sealed envelope from an absentee voter and put it in a mailbox. She moved to dismiss the charge on the ground the statute under which she was charged is unconstitutional, and she brings an interlocutory appeal of the denial of her motion. Murphy raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as:

1. Whether the statutory prohibition of unauthorized receipt from a voter of a ballot prepared by the voter for voting is void for vagueness and/or overbreadth; and

2. Whether receipt of a sealed envelope from an absentee voter and delivery of the sealed envelope to a mailbox amounts to “unauthorized receipt . . . of a ballot.”

The State asserts Murphy does not have standing to challenge the statute. We agree and accordingly affirm.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 22, 2005 12:53 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions