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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT