noting that while "[t]he Loomises also appear to be arguing that Ind. Code § 35–44–3–4 standing alone provides them with a cause of action against the Attorneys for obstruction of justice [,]…Ind. Code § 35–44–3–44 is a criminal statute that does not provide for a civil remedy."
How later courts described this case
- noting that while "[t]he Loomises also appear to be arguing that Ind. Code § 35–44–3–4 standing alone provides them with a cause of action against the Attorneys for obstruction of justice [,]…Ind. Code § 35–44–3–44 is a criminal statute that does not provide for a civil remedy."
- holding argument waived for failure to cite authority or provide cogent argument
- holding that appellants waived issue by failing to present a cognizable argument in support of their assertion
- holding that appellants waived issue by not presenting a cognizable argument in support thereof
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur subject to comments in two respects. First, as to Part 8.a., dealing with the Attorney Deceit Statute, I concur but do so upon grounds different than that stated by the majority. The provision for treble damages is applicable in a civil action for deceit. It therefore contemplates an action against an attorney for such deceit. Nevertheless, the damages recoverable under the statute are confined to a deceit practiced upon a party. It is not applicable to a non-party witness such as Wright.
Secondly, I respectfully disagree with the majority's categorization of Loomises' use of the term "goliath" in their argument as applied to Ameritech. The word does not rise to the level of name-calling. Although perhaps over-enthusiastic, it is not of a highly inflammatory nature. Fortson v. State, 270 Ind. 289 , 385 N.E.2d 429, 433 (1979). Although the terminology was used in the context of forceful and adversarial appellate advocacy, counsel might well, in the future, be more temperate. Onee again, however, it does not, in my view, cross over the line into "impertinent, intemperate, scandalous, or vituperative language." Hite v. Haase, 729 N.E.2d 170, 175 , (Ind.Ct.App.2000).
In any event it is extremely unlikely that any member of this court or of any other appellate tribunal would be in any way influenced either by use of the word "goliath" to describe a large corporation or ~ the term "self-insured" to describe the corporation's insurance status. To be sure, use of the latter term was and is wholly inappropriate, 10 but it is not name-calling.
Subject to the above observations, I concur.
. The Loomises wholly fail to demonstrate how or why Ameritech's self-insured status has any bearing whatever upon the claims against any of the defendants.