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v. Steven Hollin, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, the justices accepted a post-conviction case the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion.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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT