« Ind. Gov't. - Senate leader ousted [Updated] | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: "Fill-in judge sought in Huntington" »

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides six today

In Byron Carter v. Property Owners Ins., a 21-page opinion (with Judge Sullivan's "concurring in result" on pp. 20-21), Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Byron Carter appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Property Owners Insurance Company (Property Owners). In particular, Carter contends that the trial court erred in, among other things, concluding that he was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, such that his injury on the job was not covered by Property Owners’ insurance policy issued to Three Star Properties, Inc. (Three Star). Concluding, among other things, that there is an issue of material fact with respect to Carter’s employment status and that Property Owners is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law at this juncture, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for trial. * * *

The “leading factor of control,” Moberly, 757 N.E.2d at 1012, leans toward independent contractor status and presents an issue of material fact. The remaining factors are split between employee status—Carter’s occupation, kind of occupation, method of payment, regular business of employer, and whether the principal is in business—independent contractor status—skill required, length of employment, and belief of parties—and neutral—supplier of equipment and tools. Taken as a whole, therefore, the factors are split fairly evenly and reveal at least one substantial issue of material fact. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Property Owners. We observe that we were necessarily limited to the evidence available in the record on appeal in drawing our conclusions regarding each of the ten factors. To that end, we emphasize that our conclusions herein are drawn solely for the purposes of summary judgment. Because it is likely that additional evidence will be offered at trial regarding Carter’s relationship to Helms and Three Star, the trial court is not bound by our Moberly analysis herein. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for trial.

MAY, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs in result, with opinion.[which begins]

I concur in the reversal of the summary judgment entered in favor of Property Owners Insurance Company and in the remand for further proceedings as to the factual status of Byron Carter whether as an employee or as an independent contractor of Three Star, Inc.

However, I respectfully dissent from the gratuitous conclusions reached by the majority with respect to the ten-factor analysis drawn from the Restatement of Agency.

Brandon Patterson v. State of Indiana - sentencing, affirmed.

In Bowlers Country Club Inc. v. Royal Links USA, et al, a 10page opinion, Judge Crone concludes:

Given the circumstances presented, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to interfere with the Iowa case. Not only had Frontier already filed its action in Polk County, Bowlers had already filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa action. Presumably, in the Iowa proceeding, Bowlers has raised or is free to raise the same challenges regarding the jurisdiction, the Frontier contract’s forum selection clause, “gotcha race to the courthouse,” unconscionability, three-way agreement, etc., that it has attempted to assert in the present action. Provided that Bowlers follows applicable procedures, it should have an opportunity for full discovery and a complete presentation of its compelling arguments to the Iowa court. By granting the motion to dismiss Bowlers’ complaint, the St. Joseph Superior Court wisely avoided the potential for conflicting results and/or repeated litigation, while simultaneously upholding the valid interests of deference, courtesy, and goodwill. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Bowlers’ complaint.

Leslie Howard White v. State of Indiana - appeal of conviction and sentence affirmed.

In Maisha Williams v. Riverside Community Corrections Corp., a 23-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Maisha Williams appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Riverside Community Corrections Corporation. After terminating Williams’ employment, Riverside did not pay her for any accrued sick days or vacation days, and it reduced her hourly wage for her final pay period to the minimum wage rate of $5.15 per hour. Williams filed a claim with the trial court seeking damages under Indiana’s Wage Claims Statute. The parties filed various motions with the trial court, including cross motions for summary judgment on the issues of the reduced hourly wage rate, vacation pay, and sick pay. The trial court found in favor of Riverside on each of these issues, and Williams appealed to this Court. We find, among other things, that Williams was entitled to summary judgment on the matter of the reduction in her hourly wage rate but that the trial court properly awarded summary judgment to Riverside regarding her claims for vacation and sick pay. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court.

In Ronald L. Shanabarger v. State of Indiana, a 16-page opinion (with Judge Sullivan "concurring in opinion" on pp. 15-16), Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-petitioner Ronald L. Shanabarger appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Specifically, Shanabarger contends that his trial attorneys were ineffective because they: (1) failed to adequately respond to an instance of juror misconduct; (2) improperly permitted Shanabarger’s sister and brother-in-law to visit him in jail; (3) failed to object to the modification of a tendered instruction that the trial court gave regarding Shanabarger’s confessions; and (4) failed to object to a confession that he made to the police chaplain. Concluding that Shanabarger has failed to establish the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 3, 2006 11:34 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions