Opinions May 4, 2011

May 4, 2011
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
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following revocation of probation.

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

Thomas D. Eckel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

A.B. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Affirms denial of request for unemployment benefits.

Peggy Bracken v. Marine Corp. League Joseph Bray Det. Inc. (NFP)
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)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?