ILNews

Opinions Oct. 22, 2010

October 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Belle City Amusements, Inc. v. Doorway Promotions, Inc.
35A05-0912-CV-711
Civil. Reverses award of damages for lost profits for the years 2010 through 2013 in the amount of $17,500 for each year to Doorway after Belle City cancelled its agreement with the company to provide rides and concessions for a festival. The damages were not a foreseeable consequence of the breach of the agreement between Belle City and Doorway and Indiana doesn’t allow for recovery for perceived loss of reputation or goodwill in an action for breach of contract. Affirms $24,000 award to Doorway for the 2009 rent of the Coliseum to house the festival. Remands for further proceedings.

Estate of Jane H. Collins v. T. William McKinney
02A05-1004-EU-286
Estate. Affirms summary judgment on the effectiveness of the option to purchase certain real estate, validity of the legal description, and award of specific performance to McKinney. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in allowing McKinney to submit a supplemental affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment. Affirms ruling on Ray Collins’ breach of the option, and award of monetary compensation to McKinney. Reverses as to the value of the “damages” award and the accompanying award of pre-judgment interest and vacates award of attorney’s fees. Remands for further proceedings.

Mickey L. Armstrong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery as a Class C felony.

Thomas Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Jeremy L. Neal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony.

William Sebastian, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
14A01-1001-CR-20
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing, modifies original decision to further instruct the trial court on remand to indicate on the revocation order and abstract of judgment the number of days that Sebastian was confined prior to the revocation of his probation, and affirms in all other respects.

Asher B. Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in a community corrections work release program.

Ronnie Hanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1001-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor check deception.

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