Court opinions
Animal cruelty an exigent circumstance
June 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided animal cruelty rises to the level
of exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of curtilage. The decision came in a man's appeal of his dog fighting
convictions.
MoreSuit based on church-member letter may go on
June 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA letter written by a church member and circulated through another member's work e-mail address contains some allegedly
defamatory statements that can be considered secular, so a suit for defamation and invasion of privacy could continue on those
statements, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA: Park ban violates ex post facto laws
June 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRelying heavily on a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding sex offenders and ex post facto laws, the Indiana Court
of Appeals split in finding a city ordinance banning a convicted sex offender who no longer has to register with the state
was punitive and unconstitutional as applied to him.
MoreSCOTUS: Elected judges must step aside
June 8, 2009
Michael HoskinsElected judges must recuse themselves in cases where large campaign contributions from interested parties create an appearance
of bias, the nation's highest court ruled today.
MoreCourt doesn't order contempt sanctions on state
June 8, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with the question in an Indiana case of how much non-compliance of a consent
decree involving Medicaid applications is needed before a District Court can impose civil contempt sanctions.
MoreCOA affirms judgment in property-tax dispute
June 5, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals released an opinion today dealing with a topic that gives many homeowners headaches - property
taxes.
MoreInmate's complaint dismissed again
June 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn inmate's complaint, which led the Indiana Supreme Court to find the Three Strikes Law to be unconstitutional last year,
was properly dismissed under the Frivolous Law Claim by the trial court on remand, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA: Rule of incredible dubiosity not applicable
June 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's domestic battery conviction and sentence, concluding his wife's testimony
about the altercation wasn't subject to the rule of incredible dubiosity.
MoreCourt denies officer's summary judgment motion
June 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA federal judge denied an Indiana State Police officer's motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging he violated a
motorist's rights under the Fourth and 14th amendments, ruling it should be up to a jury to decide the issues because
the parties' stories regarding what happened during the traffic stop differ radically.
MoreCOA reiterates confidential-information filing
June 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals emphasized in an opinion today the proper procedure for filing documents with confidential information,
instigated by the fact the appellant's original appendix included a pre-sentence report on white paper and included a
Social Security number.
MoreJustices dismiss public school funding case
June 2, 2009
Michael HoskinsEven if Indiana's public school system falls short of where it should be in providing quality education, courts aren't
constitutionally able to set standards or establish a financing formula because that's a task falling solely to the General
Assembly.
MoreIssues of fact in molestation suit against father
June 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion of summary judgment by a father accused of molesting two of his
adopted sons when they were children.
MoreCOA: Police didn't need to search car after stop
June 1, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction,
ruling the warrantless search of the car the man was driving violated his federal and state constitutional rights.
MoreJustices: License plates can't be in rear windows
May 29, 2009
Michael HoskinsJustice Robert Rucker says his four Indiana Supreme Court colleagues have issued a ruling that transforms millions of law-abiding
residents into traffic offenders.
MoreJustices split on discounted medical expenses
May 28, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn a ruling about whether insurance discounts can be used to determine reasonable medical expenses, two Indiana Supreme Court
justices say their colleagues have created a new rule that is "incomplete, misleading, and unfair" and will add
"layers of complexity, time, and expense to personal injury litigation, impairing the efficient administration of justice."
MoreCOA upholds dismissal of election challenges
May 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonToday Indiana's appellate courts are dealing with two mayoral election disputes, with the Court of Appeals ruling on one
in Muncie and the Supreme Court hearing arguments in another from Terre Haute.
MoreArrest upheld after seatbelt stop
May 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's motion to suppress evidence following a traffic stop for a seatbelt
violation, finding the police officer's inquiry regarding an object in the man's pants didn't violate his constitutional
rights or the Seatbelt Enforcement Act.
MoreCOA: Church not a 'youth program center'
May 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's Class A felony conviction of possession of cocaine, finding he wasn't
within 1,000 feet of a "youth program center" because the building is a church running mostly faith-based programs.
It's an issue of first impression for Indiana courts.
MoreAdvisory sentence not sentencing starting point
May 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA man appealing his 15-year sentence for rape made a "novel" argument in his brief: the trial court should have
started its calculation of his sentence using the advisory sentence of 10 years instead of using the midpoint of 13 years.
MoreJudges disagree on statute's constitutionality
May 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue with great relevance given today's advances in technology and social networking, the Indiana Court of Appeals
concluded someone who uses a computer to download an electronic image and save it on a CD doesn't "create" a
digitalized image under the child-exploitation statute.
MoreCinergy trial ends with split verdict
May 20, 2009
Michael HoskinsA federal jury returned a verdict that a major energy company violated clean-air rules at a coal-fired power plant along the
Ohio River in southeast Indiana.
MoreWorker's entire service decides FMLA eligibility
May 19, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices ruled an employee filling multiple positions
with the same employer is eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act if the employee's total service is sufficient
to qualify, even if the service in either position alone doesn't qualify.
MoreJustices rule on Web IP issue
May 19, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a suit between a company and the marketing firm that created and hosted its Web site, the Indiana Supreme Court determined
the Uniform Commercial Code doesn't apply and the marketing firm may collect for its work under principles of common law
contract.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.