*1 1287 it, 3.The played prominent conclud Clerk of this Court is directed part desirability of calling opinion ing togeth- “[t]he [the witness, as a or at least inter of this informant] order to the trial, him in viewing preparation was a for thе rather than the to which published accused services decide,” opinions normally and concluding
Gоvernment are sent. prejudicial court committed error [3] Ordered. government to withhold permitting identity its undercover employee KIRSCH, MATHIAS, BROWN, by ac repeated JJ., the face demands disclosure); for his see also Com
cused Dias, 463, 470, v.
monwealth 451 Mass. 886 (2008) 713, (holding
N.E.2d 719 that a of an
pretrial disclosure order informant’s
identity necessary presenta a fair of the at
tion case trial because infor Leroy BURKE, Jr., Appellant-Plaintiff, mant’s information and observations were v. defense); helpful to the Wil Appellee-Defendant. ELKIN, State, 653, 669, 262 Md.App. son v. A.2d (1970) 91, No. 34A05-1509-PL-1404. (holding informant’s testimony “might hаve thrown doubt Appeals Court of Indiana. identity exchanged of the articles between Filed defendant, desirability him” and the “[t]he witness, calling the as a or May [informant] Ordered Published preparation him in interviewing at least
trial, was a matter [the defendant] decide,” that, than
rather the State to circumstances, “the privilege
under yield must and that the
nondisclosure in refusing
court abused its defendant]”), disclosure
compel [the demanded (1970). Md. t.
cer For the foregoing reasons, would of Beville’s
reverse court’s denial to compel. Aрpellant, by counsel, filed a Mo- Publish Decision.
tion to Memorandum finds and orders as follows:
1. The to Publish
Memorandum Decision is
2. This Court’s
handed cause on March down Hill, IN, De- Burke, Jr., marked Memorаndum Ap- Bunker Se, Attorney now ordered for Appellant. Pro pellant *2 Kokomo, standing with the Elkin, IN, attorney good in Attor-
Matthew J. Court, Supreme familiar with Indiana Appellee. for ney prose- and costs with associаted ALTICE, Judge. this. the cuting an action such as Since filing my of this case and of re- Summary filing Case ment. Both the time in rate was frivolous entitled ment process The trial appeal, sponded suit Elkin, [2] [1] the trial court a against Mаtthew he in favor of Elkin and set the matter Facts & Procedural damages hearing. We affirm. an Burke and a with sрent defending against suit $200. attorney, recover his own court granted and indicated Burke a parties arguеs awarded Based counterclaim $1600 testified filed a frivolous law- Elkin, and Elkin re- proceeded pro upon this damages plus At the attorney summary judg- summary judg- History costs. evidence, abuse to 'Elkin hearing, was fees not thе On se. as regarding the amount of tunity, Burke did not cross examine Elkin under advisement and entered claimed. The аmount of Transcript judgment, in pocket taining this has ting together into the filing a Motion $1640.00. filing motions attorney fees in sрonses, charge following the sum costs and I’m $200.00 affidavits, $1600 already various documents case, I put of 8.2 day plus Though given which would the for an approximately this been against court took strike costs. doing hours Summary Judgment, various motions. hour. case are asking tried and research, times and Burke in the attorney Basically my pointing out include ob- the my judgment obtaining 8.2 hours damages decided, $200.00, oppor- out-of- fees put- comрlaint against Elkin based on Elkin’s [3] On Burke filed a Discussion & Decision prior representation of in a 2001 [5] Burke’s sole argument on is trial court its abused post-conviction relief actiоn. Elkin re- pay when it ordered him Elkin’s attor- filings, including with a sponded number of ney It did not. fees. process a counterclaim for abuse ignated ly prejudice motion for claim. filed suit The evidence that Burke had in summary judgment. аgainst prior October case was dismissed with him based on the same and Burke did Elkin des- previous- party ney Code olous action or [6] fees incurred § Despite the American 34-52-l-l(b) a civil action an action makеs clear that a may litigated recover against a Rule, in bad attor- friv- Ind. appeal. Accordingly, аrgued not Similarly, attorney may faith. fees be that the instant action frivolous as in an action for abuse filed bad faith. The 34-52-l-l(c). § See I.C. The granted summary judgment favor Elkin may issue in this case whether Elkin on the counterclaim. аttorney representing recover fees for trial court then set the matter for a himself. hearing on damages. In Ziobron v. Crawford, 667 N.E.2d At on August (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. 27, 2015, Elkin part: testified adopted majority rule per- attorney
I’m an аttorney practicing mitting representing law for him or years of Indiana. I am an herself to recover an award of State in de- fees for the time and effort
fending against a recover fort prosecution expressly as an held, element of frivolous for the time and ef- “an against attorney may his lawsuit. a malicious damages.” sel, filed a Motion to Publish. *3 finds Appellee, orders as follows: Elkin, coun- 1. Appellee’s tо Publish is Id. The “To other- explained: court hold analogous prohibiting wise would be body repairman, repаired
auto who had his 2. This Court’s car, recovering own from com- reasonable handed down in on April this cause pensation vandal dam- from the who had marked Memorandum De- aged the car.” Id. now ordered Clеrk of above, this Court is directed
[8] As set forth opinion togeth- with Elkin of this order to was frivolous and should recov- and to er for abuse of published other services to which does not He determination. opinions are normally sent. challenges only resulting calculation damages. properly Pursuant Ziobron, reasonable Ordered. below.1 as an and effort he himself JJ., concur. BAILEY, BRADFORD, ALTICE, Judgment affirmed. BAILEY, J., BRADFORD, J., passing Accordingly, Burke asserts in Elkin failed rate. was evidence there sheet, invoice, “produce any time schedule or presentеd upon which the could alleged evidence document to time.’’ make a determination amount However, docu- such a Brief required ment was not because Elkin testified at the about the time he the action and his