ILNews

Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers Thursday for cases originating in Evansville - one involves a shopping center and access to a public thoroughfare, and the other deals with the failure to make payments for the modification of a Web site.

In State of Indiana v. Kimco of Evansville Inc., et al., No. 82A01-0607-CV-301, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $2.3 million jury award that stemmed from a road project in 2000 impacting a shopping plaza along State Road 66 and Green River Road in Evansville.

The jury found the owner of the shopping center was entitled to damages for loss of access to a public thoroughfare resulting from a state highway project. The appeals court affirmed that Kimco was entitled to the damages because the state had taken property, and the access and reconfiguration of the entrances amounted to more than a "mere inconvenience."

In Dennis Conwell, Frank Splittorff and Piece of America L.P. v. Gray Loon Outdoor Marketing Group Inc., No. 82A04-0609-CV-488, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Gray Loon for its suit for non-payment for the services it provided to Piece of America in the modification of Piece of America's Web site and for hosting fees. Piece of America filed a counterclaim, alleging conversion and tortious interference; the appellate court ruled there wasn't evidence to support Piece of America's claims.

The Court of Appeals ruled the failure of the parties to establish a price at the time of the agreement that Web site modifications should be made doesn't render their original contract unenforceable.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT