« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today | Main | Ind. Gov't - "Petitions U.S. Supreme Court, Seeks Equitable Compensation for Indiana Funds Affected by Chrysler, LLC Bankruptcy" »
Friday, September 04, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 14 NFP)
For publication opinions today (0):
NFP civil opinions today (6):
Lokmar Abdul-Wadood v. Officers Cross and Stang (NFP) - "Lokmar Abdul-Wadood, a prisoner at the Westville Correctional Facility, appeals pro se the small claims court's judgment in favor of Officers Cross and Stang (the “Officers”) on Abdul-Wadood's notice of claim. For our review, Abdul-Wadood raises two issues, which we restate as: 1) whether the small claims court erred when it entered judgment for the Officers,1 and 2) whether the small claims court erred when it refused to admit Abdul-Wadood's rebuttal evidence. Finding no error, we affirm."
Cheyenne Sorrill v. Southern Erectors (NFP) - "Cheyenne Sorrill (“Sorrill”) appeals an order of the Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana (“the Board”), affirming the Single Hearing Member’s (“the Single Member”) decision whereby Sorrill was awarded compensation upon his claims arising from his permanent partial impairment and temporary total disability, and from bad faith conduct of Southern Erectors’ worker’s compensation insurer, but was denied an order for the payment of future medical benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings."
In Henry A. Leopold and Andrea Leopold v. Robert S. Boone and Nancy D. Boone (NFP), an 8-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Henry and Andrea Leopold appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Robert and Nancy Boone. The Leopolds raise a single issue for our review, which we restate as whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment in favor of the Boones on the Leopolds' claims for negligence. We affirm. * * *Yvonne Williams v. Wesley W. Williams (NFP) - "Yvonne Williams (“Yvonne”) appeals the trial court's order requiring her to reimburse $11,582 to Wesley Williams (“Wesley”) for his overpayment of child support. Yvonne raises a number of issues, which we consolidate and restate as follows: I. Whether the trial court properly excluded Yvonne's Exhibit A from evidence; and II. Whether the trial court's judgment is supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm and remand."The crux of this appeal is whether the Boones, as lessors of the property, owed a duty to Henry to prevent the dogs from entering onto State Road 38. The Boones rely upon Blake v. Dunn Farms, Inc., 274 Ind. 560, 413 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. 1980), for the proposition that only the owner and keeper of the dogs, and not the lessor of the property on which the dogs are kept, can be held liable for injuries caused by the dogs. The Leopolds attempt to distinguish Blake on several grounds. We agree with the Boones that Blake is controlling authority and stands for the proposition that the Boones did not owe a duty to Henry. * * *
That law is clear and mandates summary judgment in favor of the Boones, and the Leopolds do not suggest on appeal that Blake was wrongly decided or that its holding should be changed.[1]
_________
[1] Not that such an argument would prevail in this court. See Horn v. Hendrickson, 824 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“[T]he Court of Appeals is well aware of the controlling precedents of our supreme court and has no desire to proceed in conflict with them. We are an intermediate appellate court.”).
Paternity of A.W.; A.W. v. J.R. (NFP) - "Here, the trial court dismissed the paternity action due to a lack of service on J.R. However, the record indicates that J.R. was served with a copy of the paternity petition on January 20, 2005. Thereafter, attorney Monty Arvin filed an appearance as J.R.’s counsel on February 28, 2005. Because J.R. was served with a copy of the paternity petition, the trial court erred in dismissing this action due to lack of service and abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion for relief from order of dismissal.
Reversed and remanded."
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.F. & A.F.; IDCS v. C.S. & C.F. (NFP)
NFP criminal opinions today (8):
Kenneth Lee Zamarron v. State of Indiana (NFP)
James Harold Higgason, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Nathaniel Richerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Marco Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Elisha Drake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Markeyta Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Christopher Rosebrock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Sherman Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 4, 2009 12:44 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions