ILNews

Opinins July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John A. Logan v. Donna Wilkins, M.D., et. al.
10-1415
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms decision of district court that Logan is not entitled to amend his initial complaint, holding that he had already been given the opportunity to do so but had not amended.

The Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Stacey R. Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana
20A05-1012-PC-813
Post-conviction relief petition. Reverses murder conviction, holding that while Huddleston had pleaded guilty to murder, he clearly and unequivocally stated during the factual basis colloquy that he did not intend for the victim to be killed, nor did he anticipate that another party would kill the victim.

Doe Corporation v. Lolita C. Honore, et al.
49A05-1007-MI-408
Miscellaneous. Clarifies a previous opinion at the request of Honore.

Kelly Barngrover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. Reverses conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, holding the state had not proved the paraphernalia would have been discovered during a lawful inventory search of Barngrover’s vehicle.

Jason L. Foltz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1011-CR-614
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Ashley Storm v. Kyle Storm (NFP)
32A01-1010-DR-535
Divorce resolution. Affirms trial court’s decision to bar Ashley Storm’s boyfriend from contact with her children, citing his prior domestic battery charge. Remands to trial court for recalculation and distribution of marital estate, citing improper valuation of assets and remands for explanation of deviation from parenting time guidelines.

Doe Corporation v. Lolita C. Honore, et al.

49A05-1007-MI-408
Miscellaneous. Clarifies a previous opinion at the request of Honore.

Rollander Enterprises, Inc. and Indy Investments, LLC v. H.C. Nutting Company (NFP)
15A01-1008-CC-430
Collections. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of H.C. Nutting Company.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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