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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT