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v. Steven Hollin, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, the justices accepted a post-conviction case the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion.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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT