Isadore E. Levine

This case involved a boundary dispute between neighboring landowners in Lake County, Indiana, over a 10-foot strip of land to which the Echterlings held record title but which was separated by an old fence from the Kalvaitis property. The Kalvaitis family claimed ownership of the strip through adverse possession based on continuous use and maintenance of the fence since 1906, and they filed a cross-complaint to quiet title after the Echterlings attempted to build a new fence along a statutory survey line. The trial court ruled for the Kalvaitis family, finding they had acquired title by adverse possession. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence showed open and notorious possession up to the fence for the required twenty-year period and that payment of taxes on the adjoining lot satisfied the 1927 statutory requirement even though the strip itself was not separately assessed.

property

The case involved a retired Hammond policeman who sued the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund to compel payment of a pension equal to 50% of the salaries currently paid to active first-class patrolmen, rather than the lower salary in effect when he retired in 1943. The trial court ordered the increased payments, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the 1931 Police Pension Act fixes the pension amount at 50% of the salary paid at the time the retirement application is filed, with no statutory language allowing later fluctuations based on active-duty pay changes. The court reasoned that pensions vest upon retirement and become contractual in nature, but the statute contains no provision for ongoing adjustments, and any such interpretation would require corresponding decreases if salaries fell, contrary to the legislature's expressed intent.

labor & employment

The case concerned the constitutionality of Indiana's Chapter 88 of the Acts of 1953, which permitted voters in qualifying townships (those with populations of at least 3,500 containing an incorporated town of at least 2,000) to transfer control of township schools from the trustee to a new school corporation governed by a five-member board. The trial court upheld the statute as valid, and after granting rehearing the appellate court affirmed that judgment. The court held that the population-based classification was reasonable and not arbitrary because it bore a rational relationship to the objective of creating an optional method for joint school governance in situations where prior consolidation statutes were unavailable, and the law could apply uniformly to additional townships as their populations grew, satisfying the state constitution's requirements against local or special laws.

civil rightselections

This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action filed in the St. Joseph Probate Court against the mortgagors and a subsequent purchaser of the property. The plaintiff challenged the probate court's jurisdiction over the civil matter, citing precedent that limited its criminal authority. The court examined the 1945 legislation creating the St. Joseph Probate Court, including amendments that replaced 'exclusive' jurisdiction with 'concurrent' jurisdiction alongside superior courts in civil and probate matters. It concluded that the probate court possessed concurrent jurisdiction in this foreclosure proceeding and found no error in the trial court's handling of tender and payment issues. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

propertyprocedure

This case was a criminal appeal from a 1954 conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor after a jury trial in Franklin County. The appellant raised claims of procedural irregularity in jury selection, insufficient proof of venue in Indiana, lack of evidence that he operated a motor vehicle, and improper admission of testimony about his prior guilty plea before a justice of the peace. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant waived the jury and evidentiary objections by failing to preserve them in the record or motion for new trial, that circumstantial evidence permitted the jury to infer venue, and that ample evidence supported the conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. All other justices concurred.

criminal lawprocedure

In Enlow v. State, the appellant was convicted of second-degree burglary in the Marion Criminal Court after evidence from a warrantless search of his automobile was admitted at trial. Police had arrested him and searched both his home and car without warrants shortly after a tavern burglary, but the trial court excluded the home evidence while allowing the car evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court determined that the officers lacked reasonable or probable cause to arrest the appellant or search his vehicle, making the search unlawful under Article 1, §11 of the Indiana Constitution. The court therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights