« Ind. Law - "Bill seeks to resolve local car dealer’s suit" | Main | Ind. Courts - Still more on: A new pilot project allowing web cameras in court rooms to be announced [Updated] »
Friday, January 27, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 5 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Robert Holland, A Concerned Citizen for the Redevelopment of Gary v. Richard Steele, Barbara Steele, First Midwest Bank, As Successor Trustee By Way of Merger to Bank Calumet, N.A., et al., a 19-page opinion involving an appellant pro se, Judge Bailey concludes:
Holland has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court with respect to his motion for a default judgment or the Bank’s motion for a continuance. The trial court properly denied Holland summary judgment on his quiet title claim, and properly granted summary judgment to the Bank on its trespass and slander of title claims. The trial court properly found that Holland had filed a frivolous lawsuit, and that the Bank was entitled to attorney’s fees. The amount of attorney’s fees awarded was within the trial court’s discretion. Finally, we decline to award appellate attorney’s fees.In City of Indianapolis v. Rhodora Earl, a 7-page opinion in an interlocutory appeal relating to a police chase, Judge Darden writes:
Issue. Whether the trial court erred in denying the City's motion claiming that it was entitled to summary judgment under the law enforcement immunity provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. * * *Bradley Bradford v. State of IndianaIn the present case, like in Garman, the injured party was struck by a vehicle operated by a fleeing suspect. Under the reasoning of Quakenbush, Patrick, and Garman, Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3 does not act as blanket immunity, and the issue of whether Officer Harmon acted “with due regard for the safety of all persons” is one for the trier of fact to decide after taking into consideration the totality of the facts. Thus, the trial court was correct in denying the City's motion for summary judgment.
The City attempts to avoid the aforementioned cases by recasting the issue as whether Officer Harmon was negligent in initiating the chase. As is apparent from Garman, the issue of the propriety of the chase begins but does not end with the initiation thereof. As the facts of Garmanimply, an officer's operation of his vehicle during a chase may violate Indiana Code section 9-21-1-8(d)(1) when the officer continues pursuit under circumstances where a reasonable officer, who observes the dangerous activities of the fleeing driver, would have called off the chase. Affirmed.
NFP civil opinions today (3):
Indianapolis Education Association and President Elden Wolting v. Indianapolis Public Schools (NFP)
In the Matter of L.L., (CHINS), K.R. S. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
NFP criminal opinions today (2):
Justin L. Hargrove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 27, 2012 11:44 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions