ILNews

Justices take forfeiture, adoption appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court added to its docket a Marion County drug forfeiture case and a Lake County adoption matter.

Justices agreed to review Antonio Hughley, $3,861.00 in U.S. Currency and One (1) Buick, VIN# 4V37J7E133835 v. State of Indiana, The Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County and The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, 49S04-1406-MI-386.

In a five-page memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the state for seizure of cash found on Hughley. Authorities asserted the money was related to drugs seen in plain view as police searched his home for a suspect in a separate investigation.

Despite Hughley’s affidavit denying the cash was the proceeds of criminal activity, the appeals panel ruled summary judgment for the state was proper for the seizure of the money because the affidavit didn’t give rise to a genuine issue of material fact.  

Justices also granted transfer in In Re The Adoption of: J.T.D. & J.S. (Minor Children), Children to be Adopted and N.E. (Prospective Adoptive Parent) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 49S04-1406-MI-386.

In that case, the Court of Appeals ruled that an adoption petition should remain in Lake Superior Court over the objection of the Department of Child Services. DCS had initiated termination of parental rights proceedings in juvenile court involving the children, and sought to transfer the adoption proceeding to juvenile court under the county’s case allocation plan.

The appeals court held, though, that the General Assembly had placed jurisdiction in adoption cases with probate courts, so keeping the matter in Superior Court was proper.

Justices denied transfer in 18 cases. Supreme Court transfer dispositions may be viewed here
 

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