ILNews

Opinions April 10, 2014

April 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
HRC Hotels, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II of Marion County, Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth and The Myers Y. Cooper Company
49A04-1307-PL-313
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of HRC Hotels’ amended petition for judicial review, which substituted I-465 LLC as the real party in interest instead of HRC Hotels. The standing requirements under I.C. 36-7-4-1603 are procedural rather than jurisdictional, so HRC Hotels’ alleged lack of standing when the petition was filed does not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. It should substitute I-465 LLC as a real party in interest and hear the merits of the petition for judicial review. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1307-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class B felony rape, Class C felony battery, Class D felonies intimidation and strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime. Johnson knowing, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial on all of his charges, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying him the right to cross-examine the victim about past sexual conduct, and the state presented sufficient evidence to prove Johnson committed Class B felony rape and Class D felony intimidation. Judge Bradford concurs in result.

Monterius D. Sharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1306-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class C felony escape, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun and three counts of Class D felony intimidation.

Dawayne J. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1309-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

John Orville Study v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1308-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony robbery, six counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, one count of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, one count of Class D felony pointing a firearm and one count of Class D felony auto theft.

Adam W. Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1304-IF-316
Infraction. Affirms finding Powell committed Class A infraction operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility, Class A infraction driving while suspended, Class C infraction failure to register and Class C infraction window tint in violation by a driver.

Jamie L. Strickler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1308-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance under two different cause numbers.  

Richard Brown and Janet Brown v. City of Valparaiso, Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1308-PL-332
Civil plenary. Affirms order denying the Browns’ inverse condemnation claim on the merits.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT