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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT