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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT