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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT