November 16, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today that a summary judgment granting insurance policies
isn't equivalent to a money judgment that would allow for 8 percent post-judgment interest.
More
November 5, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a defendant's argument that his felon-in-possession indictment was insufficient
because his previous conviction of stealing cable doesn't meet the definition of a "crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year" under 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(20)(A).
More
October 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined today for the first time that post-retirement health insurance premiums paid by a
former employer aren't a marital asset subject to a division.
More
October 16, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn a ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court on an issue of first impression, two of the state's five justices fear a new
holding will have far-reaching impact not only on the forfeiture cases at issue, but also mortgage foreclosure cases impacting
the commercial and industrial real estate world.
More
October 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
properly reviewed the rates and fees charged by a regional sewage district at the request of a campground owner.
More
September 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide for the first time whether a company owes a continuing fiduciary duty to a former
shareholder or member to accurately report the company's fiscal results to the IRS for a year in which the former member
held stock or was still a member of the limited liability company.
More
September 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe participation of alternate jurors in discussions of evidence during recesses from trial, as allowed under Indiana Jury
Rule 20(a)(8), doesn't violate Indiana statute that prevents alternates from participating in deliberations. The Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled on the matter for the first time today.
More
August 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer this week to three cases, including a first impression case involving whether someone
who has drugs within 1,000 feet of a youth program center run in a church can have their conviction enhanced.
More
August 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in a ruling today the evidentiary significance of a fax confirmation
generated by the sender's machine. The Circuit Court determined the fax confirmation is strong evidence of receipt, so
the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a company in an employment-discrimination case.
More
July 27, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court decided housing owned by a non-profit that receives governmental subsidies
to rent to low- and moderate-income people at below-market rates is not property used for a charitable purpose.
More
July 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAnalyzing the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals today determined reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct
a drug-detecting dog sniff of a private residence. Even though the state didn't argue the police had reasonable suspicion,
it established the officers relied on the warrant executed after the sniff in good faith.
More
July 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined today the rental of cabins in a subdivision was allowed
under its restrictive covenants because the rental property was for "residential use."
More
July 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether a defendant's prior conviction for
conspiracy to deal in cocaine qualified as a conviction for dealing in cocaine under the state's habitual offender statute.
More
July 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsA trial judge shouldn't have suppressed a drunk-driving breath test on grounds that a time change interfered with the
prosecution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today on an issue of first impression.
More
June 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonSince a man who had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's garage did not have permission to be in her house, he committed
residential entry as a Class D felony when he kicked in her locked kitchen door to use the phone.
More
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.
More
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.
More
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.
More
May 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court had to decide whether an insurance company's uninsured motorist
policy - which requires the bodily injury be sustained by an insured - violates the state's uninsured motorist statute
and is unenforceable.
More
May 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that not stopping at an intersection cannot, without
more evidence, constitute criminally reckless conduct and establish a prima facie case.
More
April 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals today analyzed for the first time the legal parameters required to affirm an order issued to
protect a person under the Workplace Violence Restraining Order Act. The appellate court turned to the Indiana Civil Protection
Order Act to provide context for analyzing cases under the WVROA.
More
April 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing an issue today for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether a couple
could sue their insurance broker for alleged negligence during the application process.
More
April 14, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn considering a common arrangement between a utility company and property developer, the Indiana Court of Appeals has given
a green light for that utility to exercise eminent domain when a developer is financing a sewer line extension to a proposed
housing development.
More
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined text messages are subject to separate authentication
before being admitted into evidence, much like the authentication process that data saved in a computer must undergo before
being admitted.
More
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined in a case of first impression that the state's 'non-suspension rule' in
Indiana Code depends on the status of the prior criminal conviction at the time of sentencing for a subsequent conviction.
More
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.