ILNews

Opinions April 25, 2012

April 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Emilio Martino v. Western & Southern Financial Group
12-1855
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Western & Southern Financial Group on Martino’s lawsuit for religious discrimination and defamation. Martino’s evidence neither calls into doubt W&S’s explanation for his discharge – that he did not provide documents verifying his eligibility for employment in the U.S. – nor establishes a prima facie case of defamation.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Martin Meehan v. State of Indiana
71A04-1209-CR-453
Criminal. Reverses Class C felony burglary conviction and resulting habitual offender enhancement because there is no evidence that would support an inference that Meehan’s DNA was found on a glove because he handled it during the burglary, as opposed to some other time.

James Edwin Goris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A01-1209-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalence between 0.08 and 0.15, and Class C infraction failure to obey a stop sign at a through highway.

Walter Fisk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-646
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motorized vehicle.

Antonio A. Burgos, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1209-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-PC-736
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jessica and Gerson Urbina v. Tina Klinkose-Kyler, Laronda Southworth and A Bond of Life Adoptions, LLC (NFP)

06A01-1210-CT-464
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of the Urbinas’ lawsuit against ABLA for damages in a failed adoption process. Remands for reinstatement of the complaint.

Richard J. Bond v. Knox County Drainage Board and Dick Vermillion, As Knox County Surveyor (NFP)
42A01-1209-PL-422
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Bond’s petition for judicial review for failure to state a claim.

Brenda Varo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-144
Criminal. Grants rehearing to address an issue raised in Varo’s appeal on a jury instruction on criminal gang activity, but that the error, if any, was waived. Reaffirms original decision.

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1207-CR-378
Criminal. Grants state’s petition for rehearing, vacates the portion of opinion denying a hearing on restitution and remands for a new hearing on restitution.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions 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. 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