ILNews

Opinions May 4, 2011

May 4, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Eppl v. Christine DiGiacomo
45A03-1007-SC-402
Small claim. Reverses summary judgment for DiGiacomo and order that Eppl return DiGiacomo’s security deposit and pay her attorney fees. DiGiacomo’s mere delivery of the keys is not sufficient to demonstrate that Eppl actually accepted surrender of the premises and thereby released her from liability as of that date. Eppl’s itemization of damages letter was timely. Affirms determination that Eppl isn’t entitled to prevail in whole on his counterclaim for damages and remands with instructions to calculate the undisputed nail hole damage and expenses for repair of a broken light fixture to be deducted from the security deposit.

American Family Home Insurance Co. v. Rick Bonta
64A04-1008-CT-516
Civil tort. Reverses order granting a new trial in favor of Bonta. The trial court erred when it failed to make specific findings in setting aside the jury’s verdict and granting a new trial because the court concluded that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Also finds American Family Home Insurance has standing to bring the appeal. Remands for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.

Jack M. Estes, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-657
Criminal. Affirms sentence following revocation of probation.

Thomas James Newsom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Thomas D. Eckel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1010-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person while having a prior conviction within the past five years, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body.

Michael Bracken v. State of Indiana (NFP)
23A05-1010-CR-667
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony methamphetamine manufacture and finding that Bracken is a habitual substance offender.

Cassandra Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

A.B. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1009-EX-988
Civil. Affirms denial of request for unemployment benefits.

Peggy Bracken v. Marine Corp. League Joseph Bray Det. Inc. (NFP)
84A05-1009-CT-593
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment for Marine Corp. League Joseph A. Bray Detachment Inc. with respect to Bracken’s slip and fall at the premises known as Northside Bingo.

Gary C. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1007-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT