« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues one Indiana ruling today | Main | Environment - "New Asian carp czar John Goss outlines approach" »

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 9 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Department of Waterworks v. Community School Corp., So. Hancock, a 21-page, 2-1 opinion (including a colored map on p. 18), Chief Judge Baker writes:

Southern Hancock School Systems (School) is scheduled to open a new intermediate school in August 2011. Pursuant to its plan, the School wants to connect a 2300-foot service pipe from an existing water main to its new facility. The Indianapolis Department of Waterworks (Water Company) denied the School’s request to install a service pipe in lieu of a water main extension because the School’s idea was contrary to the Water Company’s rules and “good engineering practice.” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. This case comes before us following the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s (IURC) determination that the rules do not preclude the School from connecting a service pipe to its new facility from an existing main.
Appellant-respondent Water Company appeals the IURC’s decision in favor of appellee-complainant School, claiming that the IURC’s decision allowing the School to construct its own water service line rather than paying for a water main extension is contrary to law because the new building does not abut an existing main as required by the Water Company’s departmental rules. The Water Company also asserts that the IURC’s factual determinations regarding the economics of the School’s decision to connect to the existing main are not supported by the evidence and that the School failed to refute the Water Company’s engineering plans and water quality analysis. Concluding that the IURC properly determined that the Water Company’s rules do not preclude the School from connecting its new building to an existing water main and finding no other error, we affirm. * * *

MATHIAS, J., concurs.
RILEY, J., dissents with opinion. [that concludes] Under the undisputed facts before us, the new intermediate school is constructed on its own parcel within the school corporation’s campus. As far as I can discern, this new construction is not attached to any existing building but is an independent structure at the far end of the campus. Mindful of the rule and its accompanying definitions, the new school should be considered a “premise,” pursuant to Rule 7(J), and thus it would be appropriate to require the School to pay for a new main extension.

In Gregory Carter v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Gregory Carter appeals his conviction of Class D felony theft1 and Class B felony robbery resulting in bodily injury.2 He raises three issues for our consideration: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when excluding evidence of Wal-Mart's standard operating procedures for detaining shoplifters? 2. Did some of the prosecutor's comments during voir dire rise to the level of misconduct resulting in fundamental error? 3. Did Carter's convictions of theft and robbery subject him to double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution? * * *

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when excluding certain evidence, and the prosecutor's actions were not misconduct resulting in fundamental error. However, Carter's convictions of theft and robbery based on the same act subjected him to double jeopardy and, accordingly, his conviction of theft must be vacated.

NFP civil opinions today (5):

James Ricketts v. First Horizon Home Loans, et al. (NFP)

Robert Egierski v. Caterina M. Sergio (NFP)

Steven Griggs v. Steve Querry (NFP)

Lambert C. Genetos, et al. v. Andrew J. Kopko (NFP)

Joseph M. Sipe v. Laurie L. Sipe (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Jack M. Estes, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Timothy P. Treacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gerald M. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 8, 2010 11:44 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions