« Ind. Courts - Marion County Traffic Court in the news today | Main | Environment - "Further briefing due in pollution case" »
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Metro Health Professionals, Inc. v. Chrysler, LLC, a 13-page opinion, Judge Brown writes [emphasis by ILB]:
Metro Health Professionals, Inc. (“MHP”), appeals the trial court‟s grant of summary judgment to Chrysler, LLC. MHP raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting Chrysler‟s motion for summary judgment and denying MHP‟s motion for summary judgment. We reverse. * * *In Jacobsville Developers East, LLC v. Warrick County, Indiana, et al, a 10-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:This case requires that we interpret the Indiana Motor Vehicle Protection Act. * * *
The Indiana Motor Vehicle Protection Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law, is found at Ind. Code §§ 24-5-13-1 to -24. * * *
MHP argues that the nonconformity in this case was subject to repair four times but continued to exist. MHP argues that the trial court therefore erred when it concluded that the Lemon Law required “that the nonconformity continue to exist after each additional repair attempt that follows a reasonable number of repair attempts” under Ind. Code § 24-5-13-15(a). Appellant‟s Brief at 9. Chrysler, on the other hand, argues that the grant of summary judgment in its favor is proper because MHP failed to show that the nonconformity continued to exist after its fifth attempt at having the vehicle repaired. Indiana courts have not yet addressed this issue. * * *
We hold that the plain language of Ind. Code § 24-5-13-15(a)(1) obligates a consumer to demonstrate that the vehicle was subject to repair at least four times and that the same defective condition remained unresolved after the fourth attempt. Therefore, once a consumer has met the four-repair threshold and the defect remains unresolved, the requirements of Ind. Code 24-5-13-15(a)(1) have been met. The requirement that the defect “continues to exist” is another way of saying that the fourth repair attempt was unsuccessful. * * *
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment filed by Chrysler and the trial court's denial of MHP's motion for summary judgment and enter summary judgment in favor of MHP.
Jacobsville Developers East, LLC (“JDE”), appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its complaint for inverse condemnation against the Warrick County Board of Commissioners (“County”) and the Warrick County Area Planning Commission (“APC”). We affirm.NFP civil opinions today (1):The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing JDE’s inverse condemnation action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. * * *
In sum, when the APC denied JDE’s first plat application on the basis that the fifty-foot strip was not dedicated, JDE had a potential Dolan claim for excessive exaction and not a claim for an actual, uncompensated taking. However, JDE never went before the certiorari court to attempt to establish an excessive exaction. Instead, it sought approval of a second application in which it included the very dedication it now claims to constitute an unconstitutional taking. “[T]he exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate.” Williamson County, 473 U.S. at 193 (emphases added). Therefore, in failing to fully pursue the judicial review remedy available in the certiorari court, JDE failed to exhaust its available administrative remedies. As a result, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear JDE’s substantive exaction claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of JDE’s complaint.
NFP criminal opinions today (7):
Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Jeremy C. Greene v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Charlotte Saunders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Terry Eldridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juan C. Gamboa v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Sharman Marlon Pearson, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Randal Barnes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 5, 2009 12:51 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions