« Ind. Law - Golf cart legislation's future unpredictable at this point | Main | Ind. Courts - Judicial Center's Legislative Update #4 »

Friday, February 06, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Indianapolis Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard P.C. and Thornton Tomasetti Engineers, a 34-page, 2-1 opinion, CJ Baker writes:

Appellant-plaintiff Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library (Library) appeals the trial court?s entry of summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants Charlier Clark & Linard, PC, (CCL), Thornton Tomasetti Engineers (TTE), and Joseph G. Burns (collectively, the appellees). Specifically, the Library argues that the judgment entered for the appellees on its negligence claims was erroneous because those claims were not barred under the economic loss doctrine as espoused by our Supreme Court in Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005). Concluding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the appellees because the economic loss doctrine precludes the Library from recovering under these circumstances, we affirm. * * *

In light of our discussion above, we conclude that the negligence claims that the Library brought against the appellees are subject to the economic loss doctrine and are “best relegated to contract law” in accordance with Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005). Moreover, the purported exceptions to the economic loss doctrine do not apply. As a result, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the appellees on the Library's negligence claims. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BAILEY, J., concurs.
BROWN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion. [which begins, on p. 29] I respectfully concur as to the majority's conclusion that summary judgment was properly entered in favor of CCL. However, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that summary judgment based on the economic loss doctrine was appropriate as to TTE.

In Alexa Whedon v. State of Indiana , a 12-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Following her conviction for murder, Alexa Whedon appeals the post-conviction court‘s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, Whedon contends that the post-conviction court erred in determining that she failed to meet her burden of proving her newly discovered evidence claim and in excluding expert testimony during the post-conviction hearing about incentivized witnesses and wrongful convictions. Concluding that the post-conviction court‘s finding that a witness‘s testimony was not worthy of credit is not clearly erroneous and that the expert‘s testimony was not helpful to the trier of fact and was an improper comment on the credibility of the witnesses, we affirm the post-conviction court.
In Marc A. Schumann v. State of Indiana, an 8-page opinion, CJ Baker writes:
Appellant-defendant Marc A. Schumann appeals the ten-year sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea to Arson,1 a class B felony. Specifically, Schumann maintains that the sentence is inappropriate because the record demonstrates that the parties and the trial court originally intended that he would serve a portion of the sentence with the Indiana Department of Mental Health (DMH). However, because the trial court ultimately determined that Schumann was to serve his entire executed sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), he maintains that we should “exercise [our] authority to revise [the] sentence and enter a . . . sentence of ten years or less, fully suspended.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Charles Decker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Terry Beanblossom v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Donald C. Nelson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Daniel Petrusevski v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jerrell Freeney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Berneda L. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Darrell L. Manuel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 6, 2009 12:52 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions