Arch N. Bobbitt

The case involved a relator seeking a writ of prohibition from the Indiana Supreme Court to prevent the Porter Circuit Court from further exercising jurisdiction in a civil contempt proceeding, after the relator had been found guilty following a hearing. The court dissolved its temporary writ and denied a permanent writ. It reasoned that the trial court had inherent authority to punish for contempt and possessed jurisdiction over both the relator and the case, rendering the judgment not void for lack of jurisdiction. The proper remedy for any error in the judgment was an appeal, not a writ of prohibition, and the petition was also defective for failing to first challenge jurisdiction in the trial court as required by court rules.

procedure

In Gates v. State, the petitioner appealed the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, challenging his guilty plea to obtaining money under false pretenses by arguing that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel and did not enter the plea knowingly and understandingly. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the writ. The court reasoned that the record showed the petitioner was advised of his right to counsel on multiple occasions, declined it, confirmed his understanding of the charge and penalty, and that the trial judge had observed his demeanor and found the plea voluntary; conflicts in evidence were resolved in favor of the trial court's findings, and the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned a taxpayer's suit to enjoin Van Buren civil and school townships from issuing bonds totaling $147,000 to build and equip an elementary school, on the ground that the bonds plus existing debt would exceed the two-percent constitutional debt limit in Article 13, § 1 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court denied the injunction after the parties stipulated the assessed valuations and outstanding indebtedness. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed, holding that the constitutional limit is calculated on the true cash value of taxable property rather than the fractional assessed value (one-third of true value) used for taxation under 1959 legislation. The court reasoned that the phrase "value... ascertained by the last assessment" refers to actual value, consistent with the purpose of the debt limitation and decisions from other states with similar provisions, and that a 1961 statute implementing this method was valid.

taxesproperty

The case involved relator Joseph M. Shannon, an attorney who had represented a client in a divorce action venued to Hendricks Circuit Court and served as a commissioner to sell real estate under the property settlement; after receiving settlement funds on the client's behalf but before receiving his contingent fee, Shannon retained the money asserting an attorney's lien, prompting the circuit court to issue a contempt citation and order to pay over the funds under a statute allowing courts to compel attorneys to deliver client money. Shannon petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to bar further enforcement of the contempt order. The court granted the writ, reasoning that the cited statute did not address liens on funds recovered through an attorney's efforts and that Indiana equity independently recognizes a retaining lien allowing an attorney to hold such proceeds as security for unpaid fees. The decision turned on the distinction between statutory mechanisms and equitable liens, concluding that Shannon's retention did not constitute a refusal to deliver funds within the statute's meaning.

family lawprocedure

The case involved property owners who sought a court mandate to compel issuance of improvement location permits for lots in a subdivision plat approved by the former Marion County Plan Commission in 1955 but recorded in 1959 without approval from the newly established Metropolitan Plan Commission. The trial court granted the mandate, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recording lacked legal effect. The court reasoned that under the 1955 legislation creating a unified planning authority for Marion County and the subsequent adoption of a subdivision control ordinance granting the Metropolitan Plan Commission exclusive authority over plat approvals, two steps were required to establish a valid subdivision: approval by the body with jurisdiction at the time of recording and proper recording itself. Because the owners completed recording only after the new commission had assumed exclusive control, the plat was invalid and permits could not issue.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appeal by Neville from a conviction for reckless homicide after a jury acquitted him of involuntary manslaughter; he was fined $500 and sentenced to 90 days at the Indiana State Farm. After the appeal was filed but before it could be heard, Neville died, prompting his attorney to suggest dismissal and the State to move for dismissal on grounds that the issues were moot. The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the death of a criminal appellant generally abates the proceedings because reversal could not lead to a retrial and affirmation could not be enforced against a deceased defendant, that a fine could not be collected from the estate, and that no appeal would be entertained solely on the question of costs.

criminal lawprocedure