The case involved the Marion County Plan Commission's effort to enjoin operation of a trailer coach park on two adjacent tracts of land as a violation of the county's 1948 zoning ordinance. The court examined whether the ordinance was validly enacted under the 1947 state enabling act, whether its annual licensing fee provisions were authorized, whether those provisions survived a 1949 statute, and whether prior use of the "blue" tract created a lawful nonconforming use exempt from the ordinance. It concluded the ordinance took effect in late 1948 or early 1949, that annual permit fees lacked statutory authorization, and that evidence supported the trial court's finding of no qualifying prior use, resulting in affirmance of the injunction judgment.
The case involved the Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission revoking Midwest Liquor Dealers, Inc.'s liquor wholesaler's permit after a hearing, based on a major stockholder's prior felony conviction in violation of the governing statute. The company obtained a restraining order from the Superior Court of Marion County to block enforcement of the revocation. The state then sought an original writ of prohibition from the Indiana Supreme Court to prevent the superior court from enforcing that order. The Supreme Court made the temporary writ permanent, holding that the superior court lacked authority because liquor permits create no property or contractual rights and the statute provides only a limited right of appeal as the exclusive remedy.
In Lunce, Reynolds v. State, two defendants convicted of robbery appealed their convictions, arguing that their out-of-state counsel's incompetent representation denied them due process under the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, ruling that the claimed errors by counsel did not rise to the level of a complete lack of representation equivalent to or worse than none at all, as required by precedent such as Wilson v. State. The majority emphasized that ordinary procedural mistakes or strategic decisions by attorneys do not justify reviewing every case on appeal to maintain stability in appellate practice. A dissent contended that the record demonstrated gross incompetence, including improper handling of the appeal, warranting reversal to safeguard the defendants' constitutional rights to competent counsel.
This case is an appeal from a trial court judgment granting a permanent injunction. The appellees petitioned to transfer the appeal to the Appellate Court, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. The court agreed, holding that jurisdiction requires a constitutional question to be both involved and properly presented to the trial court. Appellants' claim in their brief that the injunction deprived them of property without due process was insufficient because the issue had not been raised below, as supported by cited precedents. The petition for transfer was granted and the cause ordered transferred.
This case was an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis following the appellant's guilty plea to auto banditry after being charged with robbery and auto banditry. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition. The majority reasoned that the appellant had voluntarily admitted guilt in detail to police, knew the penalty for auto banditry and his right to a jury trial, and that the brief consultation with his appointed pauper attorneys and lack of further advice on constitutional rights caused no prejudice given the facts. A dissent argued that the ten-minute consultation demonstrated inadequate representation violating due process.
This case involved a petition for writs of mandate and prohibition challenging a trial court's denial of a plea in abatement in an underlying action on account and for appointment of a receiver. The relator argued that service of summons was improper because it was left at his place of business rather than his residence. The court vacated the temporary writ, holding that writs of prohibition and mandamus are extraordinary remedies that do not issue where an adequate alternative remedy, such as an appeal, exists.