Judge Terry A. Crone
Judges reverse dismissal of application to adjust claim
January 14, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board that a medical services provider’s
application for an adjustment of claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3.
The appellate court relied on a recent decision involving a similar scenario to make its ruling.
MoreCourt clarifies, reaffirms its prior back pay ruling
December 30, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals denied an Attorney General’s request to clarify a previous ruling that slashed a $42.4
million damages award, and clarified the two-month period from which state employees can recover back pay.
MoreCourt rules on artificial insemination issues
December 27, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA divided Indiana Court of Appeals found that a man who donated sperm can be found to be the father of only one of the two
children conceived by artificial insemination.
MoreJudges: early retirement ends unemployment benefits
November 5, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of unemployment benefits for an auto worker who accepted an early retirement
package after she was laid off.
MoreCourt divides over injury claim under insurance policy
October 29, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a couple’s emotional distress claim constitutes “bodily injury”
under their uninsured motorist coverage.
MoreJudges split on court's role in garnishments with pro se debtors
October 28, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals was divided on whether a trial court should assert exemptions in garnishment actions on behalf
of debtors who aren’t represented by counsel.
MoreCourt cuts $42.4 million state back pay award
October 8, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals today significantly slashed a $42.4 million damages award against the state, cutting the period
from which employees can recover back pay from 20 years to about two months.
MoreCourt reaffirms 3-step test for in camera review
September 24, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals doesn’t believe that its previous ruling regarding the in camera review of an organization’s
documents relating to alleged molestation victims sends the message that it’s “open season” on the records
of victim services providers.
MoreAppellate court vacates murder, dealing convictions
September 23, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals vacated convictions of felony murder and dealing in a controlled substance because the state
didn’t prove the man was involved in the dealing of ecstasy.
MoreWrongful death statute allows for attorney fees, other costs
September 17, 2010
Elizabeth BrockettCompensation for attorney fees and other costs can be awarded under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, ruled a Court of Appeals
panel today.
MoreAttenuation doctrine doesn't apply under Indiana Constitution
September 10, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe attenuation doctrine has no application under the state’s constitution, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today
in a case alleging an unconstitutional search.
MoreJudges split in adopted trust-beneficiaries matter
August 13, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression regarding the retroactivity of a 2003 amendment to the state’s trust code, the Indiana
Court of Appeals was divided on whether adopted children should have been included as beneficiaries of a trust.
MoreCOA: Trial court to decide pre-sentencing educational credit time
July 23, 2010
Elizabeth BrockettA trial court is the proper authority to determine credit if a defendant earns educational credit time prior to sentencing,
the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreDefendants entitled to competency hearing in probation revocations
July 22, 2010
Jennifer NelsonDefendants are entitled to a competency hearing as part of their due process rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded
today, addressing the issue for the first time.
More3-step test needed to balance rights
July 15, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIndiana’s victim-advocate privilege is limited by a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, the Indiana Court
of Appeals concluded today on the matter of first impression.
MoreTown lacked needed consents to annex land
July 15, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time whether the waiver of the right to object to,
remonstrate against,
or appeal an annexation constitutes “consent” to an annexation under Indiana Code.
MoreCourt addresses fine line between traffic stop, arrest
July 9, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a man’s drunk driving and marijuana possession convictions based on police
officer conduct, finding that the officer shouldn’t have held a gun and handcuffed him during what could have been a
legitimate traffic stop.
MoreCOA: Teen didn't resist law enforcement
July 7, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA teen who refused to stand up or pull up his pants when ordered by a police officer did not resist law enforcement, the Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA reverses judgment on 1 cross-claim in library appeal
June 28, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library should be able to pursue a cross-claim against an engineering company for breach
of professional standard of care, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt rules on literacy program, educational credit time
June 9, 2010
Michael HoskinsWhile applauding a prison inmate for pursuing higher education while behind bars, the Indiana Court of Appeals has determined
that man shouldn’t receive additional educational credit time for a program the state system doesn’t consider
to fit into its definition of “literacy and life skills” programs.
MoreInsurance presents first-impression issue
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.
MoreCOA splits on cheek-swab requirements
September 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled taking a cheek swab for DNA testing requires reasonable suspicion only, not probable
cause, under federal and state constitutions.
MoreCOA rules on parenting time restriction
August 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges had differing opinions as to whether the trial court was required to enter findings during
a hearing in which a mother's parenting time was restricted.
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.
MoreJudges differ in non-compete agreement case
May 18, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a legal dispute regarding a non-compete agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether the agreement
could be enforced if the former employee's clients voluntarily left and contacted him to continue to be their accountant.
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
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.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!