City of Indianapolis v. Satz, No. 678S116

Docket NºNo. 678S116
Citation377 N.E.2d 623, 268 Ind. 581
Case DateJune 21, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 623

377 N.E.2d 623
268 Ind. 581
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS and Robert L. Snow, Appellants,
v.
Arnold SATZ, Appellee.
No. 678S116.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 21, 1978.

[268 Ind. 582]

Page 624

William Soards, Soards & Carroll, David R. Frick, Corp. Counsel, Indianapolis, for appellants.

John T. Lorenz, Kightlinger, Young, Gray & DeTrude, Faust & Joyce, Indianapolis, for appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Robert Snow, an off-duty policeman with the Indianapolis Police Department, arrested plaintiff Satz who was subsequently charged with being disorderly and with interfering or taunting a police officer. Subsequently Satz executed a release discharging the City from any and all liability arising from the incident. The release recited that the City denied liability and was dropping the above charges in return for the release by way of compromise. Satz later filed a complaint against Snow, the City of Indianapolis and one, Leonard Koplow, the owner of the store which at the time employed Snow as a security guard. The City moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the statutory notice had not been given, which motion was overruled. The jury returned a verdict for Koplow but against Snow and the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that there was substantial compliance with the City notice requirements. City of Indianapolis v. Satz (1977), Ind.App., 361 N.E.2d 1227. The court also affirmed the judgment with respect to the errors raised by appellant Snow. However, Snow has not petitioned this Court to transfer his cause and therefore those issues are not before us.

Similar arguments were presented to this Court recently in the case of Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 333. There we held that the City notice statute then in force, IC § 18-2-2-1 (Burns' 1974) (now found in IC § 34-4-16.5-7 (Burns' Supp.1977)), "places an affirmative duty upon the plaintiff to deliver a writing to the city manifesting[268 Ind. 583] the nature of the claim." 370 N.E.2d at 336. Although the plaintiff in Geyer had not satisfied the statutory mandate, we noted that in some instances the requirement may be met by substantial compliance. Such was the situation in Galbreath v. City of Indianapolis (1970), 253 Ind. 472, 255 N.E.2d 225, where the plaintiff, although he had not delivered a notice of claim to the proper city officials specified under the statute, had nevertheless within the 60-day limit sent two letters

Page 625

to the city legal department detailing the accident and its surrounding circumstances. Consequently, this Court held that the plaintiff had substantially complied with the notice requirement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • State v. Edgman, No. 3-680A171
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1983
    ...under reasonable control while operating said motor vehicle upon a public highway.' " Thornton v. Pender, supra 268 Ind. at 556, 377 N.E.2d at 623. 18 Even if a multi-issue instruction were acceptable, this instruction was properly refused. The first legal concept, regarding mere evide......
  • Coghill v. Badger, No. 2-379A51
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1981
    ...Ind. 227, 230-31, 32 N.E.2d 88, 89). Accord, Delaware County v. Powell (1979), Ind., 393 N.E.2d 190; City of Indianapolis v. Satz (1978), 268 Ind. 581, 377 N.E.2d 623; Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334, 370 N.E.2d In Geyer, supra, our supreme court declared that in view of it......
  • Dameron v. City of Scottsburg, Ind., No. NA97-110-C H/G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 18 Diciembre 1998
    ...Act is not a question of fact for the jury but an issue of Page 837 law for the court to determine. In City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 268 Ind. 581, 377 N.E.2d 623, 625 (1978), the Indiana Supreme Court The question of compliance with the statute is not a question of fact for the jury. It is ......
  • Hall v. SGT, No. 1:17-cv-02945-SEB-MPB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 6 Marzo 2019
    ...d[oes] not state an intent to file a claim" does not substantially comply with the ITCA. Id. (citing City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 377 N.E.2d 623 (1978)). Hall's e-mail to the DOC ombudsman exclusively concerned the unfairness of the prison's holding him liable for his involuntary cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • State v. Edgman, No. 3-680A171
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1983
    ...under reasonable control while operating said motor vehicle upon a public highway.' " Thornton v. Pender, supra 268 Ind. at 556, 377 N.E.2d at 623. 18 Even if a multi-issue instruction were acceptable, this instruction was properly refused. The first legal concept, regarding mere evide......
  • Coghill v. Badger, No. 2-379A51
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1981
    ...Ind. 227, 230-31, 32 N.E.2d 88, 89). Accord, Delaware County v. Powell (1979), Ind., 393 N.E.2d 190; City of Indianapolis v. Satz (1978), 268 Ind. 581, 377 N.E.2d 623; Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334, 370 N.E.2d In Geyer, supra, our supreme court declared that in view of it......
  • Dameron v. City of Scottsburg, Ind., No. NA97-110-C H/G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 18 Diciembre 1998
    ...Act is not a question of fact for the jury but an issue of Page 837 law for the court to determine. In City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 268 Ind. 581, 377 N.E.2d 623, 625 (1978), the Indiana Supreme Court The question of compliance with the statute is not a question of fact for the jury. It is ......
  • Hall v. SGT, No. 1:17-cv-02945-SEB-MPB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 6 Marzo 2019
    ...d[oes] not state an intent to file a claim" does not substantially comply with the ITCA. Id. (citing City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 377 N.E.2d 623 (1978)). Hall's e-mail to the DOC ombudsman exclusively concerned the unfairness of the prison's holding him liable for his involuntary cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT