In a matter spanning five years and over seven different legal actions and appeals, Brian Dinday fought for his client to collect on a half million dollar judgment against relatives who defrauded her. Not withstanding threats, stalking and intimidation tactics by one defendant, Dinday pressed on and collected on the judgment and then won sanctions in the Court of Appeal against the defendant and his attorney for improper tactics.
The opinion of the Court of Appeal was certified for publication and has been cited in several other published opinions since.
Dinday agreed to represent the client although the client confessed to him that one of her prior attorneys had withdrawn due to alleged threats made. Another prior attorney (female) complained that one defendant had assaulted her. Indeed, the defendants sued Dinday personally twice, and behaved in such a way that he felt obliged to obtain a restraining order against one defendant.
This same defendant once challenged Dinday personally, saying "You'll never see a NICKEL of that money, EVER!" He was wrong.
People v. Johnny Fannin
Aug 30, 2001
Published criminal appeal that made new law.
Brian Dinday represented a man who was arrested while sitting quietly alone at a bus stop for possessing a "slungshot", which is an archaic weapon that is no longer used, but which was never defined in either the case law or in statute.
More or less, a slung shot is similar to a medieval mace or "morningstar" which is slung on the end of a strap or chain, but what Mr. Fannin had was his bicycle lock linked onto the end of a chain that he used to secure his bicycle.
The issue in the appeal is that the statute was unconstitutionally vague without a definition of what a "slungshot" was. In fact, most judges didn't know what one was. The opinion was published in the law books and it included for the first time, a definition of what a "slungshot" is.
Butler v. Hathcoat
Sep 01, 1983
Published appeals decision; Case won for client.
In this case, Dale Butler was the Plaintiff, and under a prior attorney's representation, the case had allegedly not been tried within the five years allowed by statute. Mr. Dinday took over the case after the expiration of five years, and took the case to trial and won. The defendant appealed, claiming that the case should have been dismissed as not timely.
The Court of Appeal accepted Mr. Dinday's argument that there were implied exceptions to the dismissal statute, including "waiver" of the mandatory dismissal statute after five years had run. This was a new legal doctrine and the case was therefore published. This win allowed Mr. Dinday's client to collect substantial funds being held in escrow for years.