ILNews

Justices take 3 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to three cases last week, including a lawsuit filed by parents after their severely disabled daughter died at school as a result of choking on food.

The justices granted Michael and Denita Lyons’ request for the transfer in Michael E. Lyons, Denita L. Lyons, individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Megan Renee Lyons, Deceased v. Richmond Community School Corp. d/b/a Richmond High School; Joe Spicer; et al., 89S04-1312-PL-788. They sued Richmond Community School Corporation under the Indiana Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging the school’s acts or omissions caused their 17-year-old daughter’s death.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parents complied with the ITCA notice provision when they filed their lawsuit.

The justices will also hear:
•    Detona Sargent and One 1996 Buick, VIN 1G4AG55M3T6449095 v. State of Indiana, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County, and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, 49S02-1312-MI-790. The Court of Appeals ruled Detona Sargent, A Wal-Mart worker who tried to steal four iPhones from the store at the end of her shift, has no protection from forfeiture laws that allowed the state to take her car. The judges ruled her intent to use the car to transport stolen property was sufficient cause for forfeiture.
•    Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1312-CR-789. The Court of Appeals reversed Keion Gaddie’s Class A misdemeanor conviction of resisting law enforcement after finding he was under no duty to stop when the officer ordered Gaddie to do so. The judges also ruled police lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause when responding to a call about a disturbance that would justify the seizure of Gaddie.

The justices denied transfer to 29 cases for the week ending Dec. 6. The complete list is available on the court’s website.
 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT