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v. Steven Hollin, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, the justices accepted a post-conviction case the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion.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

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