Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Parrish v. Terre Haute Savings Bank

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 26, 1982No. 1-181A31Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partConover, Judge

I concur in the majority’s holding regarding trial fees. However I dissent from its ruling regarding appellate attorney’s fees. While I agree with the Bank that many states now routinely allow appellate attorneys’ fees, see, e.g., Steele v. Vanderslice, (1961) 90 Ariz. 277, 367 P.2d 636; Cirimele v. Shinazy, (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 50, 285 P.2d 311, Indiana case law does not support such recovery. Kagan v. Auto-Teria, Inc., (1976) 168 Ind.App. 314, 342 N.E.2d 890; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co., (1975) 165 Ind.App. 141, 331 N.E.2d 452; Willsey v. Hartman, (1971) 150 Ind.App. 485, 276…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Steele v. VandersliceArizona Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Templeton v. Sam Klain & Son, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Cirimele v. ShinazyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API