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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT