The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.
Appeals
K.O.A. Properties, LLC v. Matheison, No. 48A04-1207-SC-365,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2013).
Small claims court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though it was not listed as a separate party defendant on the notice of claim and defendant was not separately served with the notice, because it was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform defendant that a small claims action had been instituted against it.
Zavodnik v. Richards, No. 49A02-1209-CC-750, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2013).
When a trial court has involuntarily dismissed a case without prejudice pursuant to T. R. 41(E), T.R. 41(F) gives dismissing trial court the discretion to consider whether a complaint should be reinstated. Plaintiff should not file a substantially similar or identical complaint in another court.
Santiago v. State, No. 45A03-1207-CR-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2013).
Taken as a whole, trial court’s presumption of innocence instructions were proper, even though they did not contain express direction that the jurors must fit the evidence to the presumption of innocence or reconcile the evidence on the theory defendant was innocent.
Brock v. State, No. 79A04-1208-CR-433, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2013).
Consecutivity for intimidation sentence enhanced with habitual offender status and for “progressive penalty statute” enhanced second-conviction auto theft did not violate the prohibition of “double enhancement” when the enhancements were not based on the same prior felony conviction.