ILNews

Justices take 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted four cases on transfer.

A transfer disposition list issued by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office on Monday shows the state justices at their weekly conference on Thursday declined 24 cases, and granted transfer in four.

In James C. Purcell v. Old National Bank, No. 49S02-1201-CT-4, the justices will hear a civil tort case involving a negligence and construction fraud claim by a subordinate creditor. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting judgment on the evidence in favor of Old National Bank regarding James Purcell’s negligence and constructive fraud claims, because the bank didn’t owe him any duty as a subordinate creditor. But the appellate judges also found the trial court abused its discretion in granting judgment on claims involving actual fraud, pecuniary damages from deception and tortious interference with contract claims.

The justices accepted Anthony H. Dye v State of Indiana, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, after the Court of Appeals in November affirmed a 30-year sentence for a defendant determined to be a habitual offender. The appellate court examined the issue about the two convictions arising out of the same res gestae, and they held that the sentence increase didn’t constitute an impermissible double enhancement. Judge Melissa May dissented.

In State v. Steven Hollin, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, the justices accepted a post-conviction case the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion. The intermediate appellate panel overturned the trial court’s grant of Hollin’s petition. The trial judge had determined Hollin was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel and the prosecutor engaged in trial misconduct.

In Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and the South Bend Clinic LLP v. Archie L. Laney, No. 71S03-1201-CT-7, the justices took the civil tort that involved Archie Laney’s attorney conduct at trial. The appellate panel found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in determining Laney’s attorney’s actions did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or in concluding that the trial court instructions were sufficient to dispel any confusion that may have been caused by Laney’s counsel’s final argument. The trial court didn’t err in finding that no impropriety occurred when a witness spoke to other witnesses before trial. But the court reversed on the issue of prejudgment interest and remanded for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT