The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 10 NFP)

« Law - "Thomas M. Cooley Law School Buys Stadium Naming Rights" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides drug preemption case today »

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Zimmer, Inc. v. Todd O. Davis , an 11-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Zimmer, Inc. (“Zimmer”) sought a preliminary injunction against its former employee Todd O. Davis (“Davis”) to enforce the confidentiality, non-solicitation and non-competition provisions of their Employment Agreement with Davis.. The trial court denied Zimmer’s request for injunctive relief. Zimmer now appeals presenting the following restated issue for our review: whether the trial court erred by denying Zimmer’s request for a preliminary injunction. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. * * *

We cannot say based upon our review of the record that the evidence of record and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are without conflict and lead unerringly to a conclusion opposite that reached by the trial court. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the findings, in turn, support the trial court’s conclusion to deny Zimmer’s request for injunctive relief based upon the balance of the harms analysis. Because Zimmer has failed to meet one of the four requirements in seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zimmer’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. Finding that this ground for denial of injunctive relief was appropriate, we do not address the other grounds cited by the trial court and challenged by Zimmer.

Since we remand for a trial on the merits, we vacate the trial court’s findings and conclusions on the issues of the reasonableness of the Employment Agreement’s restrictive covenants and the affirmative defense of unclean hands. Such issues are best determined by a trial on the merits of this dispute following an adequate time for discovery.

In State of Indiana v. Greg Peters and Tricia Peters, a 10-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

The State appeals the trial court’s grant of Greg Peters’ and Tricia Peters’ motions to suppress evidence. The State presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it granted the motion to suppress. We affirm. * * *

First, the State has waived the issue of whether the officers’ initial, warrantless search was constitutional because the State has failed to make any argument on the issue of the reasonableness of that search under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court unambiguously rested its holding on Article I, Section 11, and it is well settled that Indiana courts “interpret and apply Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution independently from federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” * * *

Second, we do not address the State’s alternative argument that the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant is admissible because the probable cause affidavit was sufficiently supported by the evidence the firefighters found in the course of their searches. The State raises that issue for the first time on appeal. * * * It is well settled that Indiana’s appellate courts look with disfavor upon issues that are raised by a party for the first time on appeal or in original actions without first raising the issue in the trial court. Byrd v. State, 592 N.E.2d 690, 691 (Ind. 1992). When the State is a party to a state court proceeding, it, like all parties, must comply with the rules then governing, and its actions, like those of all parties, are subject to scrutiny under principles of waiver and estoppel. Id. at 692. The issue is waived.

The State did not carry its burden with respect to either of the two issues it attempts to raise on appeal. This court is a neutral arbiter of disputes and not an advocate for either party. Because the State has waived the issues on appeal, we need not address the merits of the trial court’s ruling on the Peterses’ motions to suppress.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.P., et al.; A.A. v. IDCS (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (9):

Deon Ray Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Willie A. Norman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jason Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Alric P. Bolt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Allan Schlechty v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Drameka L. Swain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael P. Large v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tory L. Brawner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

George Odongo v. State of Indiana (NFP)