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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT