ILNews

Eminent domain

September 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

State of Indiana v. Ecoff Trucking Inc.

Hancock Superior Court No. 30D01-0704-PL-295

Injuries:
Taking 1.62 acres and access rights to 399 feet of frontage on Mt. Comfort Road at I-70 in Greenfield

Date: July 12-13, 2010

Judge or Jury Trial: Jury trial

Judge: Hon.Terry K. Snow

Disposition: Verdict: $484,860; judgment: $569,048 (includes interest and attorney fees)

Plaintiff Attorney: Harry J. Watson, Deputy Attorney General, State of Indiana

Defendant Attorneys:
Joseph W. Hammes, Indianapolis, and John Davis, Greenfield

Case Information: State’s original appraisal/offer of $146,390 increased to $210,000 at mediation. At trial, appraisers testified to damages in the amounts of $199,000, $326,950, $433,200, and $564,200. Unique, contested issue concerning whether state’s construction landlocked a 3-acre portion of the residue during construction.•

– Joseph W. Hammes
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT