Coulson v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-785A181,1-785A181 |
| Citation | 488 N.E.2d 1154 |
| Parties | Lee A. COULSON and Beverly K. Coulson, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Max E. Goodwin, Mann, Chaney, Johnson, Goodwin & Williams, Terre Haute, Ramsey & Black, Vincennes, for appellants.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., David A. Nowak, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
ROBERTSON, P residing Judge.
Defendants-appellants Lee and Beverly Coulson (Coulsons) appeal from an order of appropriation of real estate entered by the Knox Circuit Court in favor of plaintiff-appellee State of Indiana (State).
We reverse.
In 1981, the State brought a condemnation action against the Coulsons to appropriate property needed for the replacement of a bridge on State Road 54 over Little Turtle Creek in Sullivan County, Indiana. The State sought to acquire the fee simple title to .898 acre of the Coulsons' land and also sought to appropriate a temporary easement over .712 acre of the Coulsons' property. The Coulsons objected to the State taking any portion of their real estate for the following reasons: the proposed appropriation was part of a plan to abandon State Road 54 as a state highway; the proposed taking was not for a proper public purpose; the residue of the Coulsons' property would not be benefitted by the taking; there was no good faith offer to purchase; the highway department had unlawfully and arbitrarily adopted the order describing the real estate sought to be acquired by it. A trial was held, and the court sustained the Coulsons' objections and entered a final judgment for the Coulsons against the State.
In 1983, the State brought a second condemnation action against the Coulsons involving the same bridge construction project as that proposed in the 1981 action. The State sought to acquire the fee simple title to .846 acre of the Coulsons' land and also sought to appropriate a temporary easement over .770 acre of the Coulsons' property. Apart from the difference in acreage, the description of the property to be taken in the 1983 condemnation proceeding was identical to the description in the 1981 complaint. The Coulsons renewed their objections filed in 1981, and they also asserted that the 1983 condemnation action was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court entered an order overruling the Coulsons' objections, appropriating the property described in the State's complaint, and appointing appraisers.
One issue is dispositive of this appeal: whether res judicata applies to bar the 1983 condemnation action brought by the State against the Coulsons.
Two distinct branches comprise the doctrine of res judicata. One branch, issue preclusion, applies where a particular fact or question which has been determined and adjudicated in a former suit is again put in issue in a subsequent suit. Town of Flora v. Indiana Service Corp., (1944) 222 Ind. 253, 53 N.E.2d 161; In re Marriage of Moser, (1984) Ind.App., 469...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrade v. City of Hammond
...matter, and no more is required to uphold a res judicata defense under the same-evidence rule.Id. at 405 (citing Coulson v. State, 488 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)). Much like Atkins, the Plaintiff in this case was appealing an administrative matter to the state trial court of Indiana. ......
-
E.H., Matter of
...527 N.E.2d 1141 (full faith and credit considered as to Illinois judgment and with regard to issue preclusion) with Coulson v. State (1986) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 1154, trans. denied (discussion of res judicata as embracing both issue preclusion and claim preclusion). The only allega......
-
Artusi v. City of Mishawaka
...Production Credit Ass'n. (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 802, 804, and the issue preclusion doctrine of res judicata. Coulson v. State (1986), Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 1154, 1156. However, Mishawaka argues trial courts retain jurisdiction over their judgments, having inherent power to see they are......
-
Atkins v. Hancock County Sheriff's Merit Bd.
...complete as a practical matter, and no more is required to uphold a res judicata defense under the same-evidence rule. Coulson v. State, 488 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind.App.1986). Biggs v. Marsh, supra, is distinguishable. The first suit sought specific performance of a contract and the second sought ......