ILNews

Opinions April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
In the Matter of: Anonymous
45S00-1301-DI-33
Discipline. Issues private reprimand to Lake County attorney who engaged in misconduct by making false or misleading communications regarding legal services and failing to include an office address in public communication. Respondent must pay $250 fee and one-half of the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Ball State University v. Jennifer Irons, In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Irons, Wife, and Scott Irons, Husband
45A03-1307-DR-296
Domestic relation. Dismisses Ball State’s appeal of the order to release the college transcript of Jennifer Irons’ child. This appeal was not properly brought under Appellate Rule 14(A)(3). Denies Jennifer Irons’ request for appellate attorney fees. Judge Brown concurs in part and dissents in part.

Paula Rorer (Hubbard) v. William Shane Rorer (NFP)
87A04-1310-DR-494
Domestic relation. Affirms finding of indirect contempt against Hubbard in post-dissolution proceedings.

In re the Marriage of: Annette M. Huseman, f/k/a Annette M. Mantis v. Angelo N. Mantis (NFP)
45A04-1307-DR-351
Domestic relation. Reverses the trial court’s order denying mother’s motion to correct errors and the court’s April 23, 2013, order related to father’s total arrearage and the additional weekly amount he must pay toward his arrearage. Affirms the phase-in schedule of father’s modified support payments, and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judge Robb dissents.

Tyrone A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-787
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeremy J. Holden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1308-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms 10-year sentence for Class B felony armed robbery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.J. and A.J. (Minor Children) and S.J. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A04-1309-JT-465
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Donald William Myers, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1305-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses Myers’ four convictions of Class A felony attempted murder.

Jay Darland and Kathleen Darland v. Elizabeth Rupp (NFP)
06A04-1308-PL-403
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Rupp on the Darlands’ complaint seeking damages arising from a car accident.

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