ILNews

Opinions April 26, 2013

April 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Big Ridge Inc., Jerad Bickett, et al. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, et al.
12-2316, 12-2460
Review of order. Denies petitions for review filed by mine operators and a group of mine employees regarding regulations that allow for Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors to review employee medical and personnel records during inspections to verify the mines have not been under-reporting miners’ injuries and illnesses. Agrees with the commission that MSHA acted within its statutory and constitutional authority both in demanding information that would permit MSHA to verify the accuracy of mine operators’ injury reports and in issuing citations and monetary penalties when mine operators refused to comply.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Platinum Construction Group, LLC v. Christopher Collings
93A02-1210-EX-882
Agency action. Affirms award of benefits to former Platinum construction supervisor Collings for injuries he suffered during an accident on the job. The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s findings awarding Collings sums for temporary total disability and sums for permanent partial impairment support its judgment.

Shari (Ellis) Lovold v. Clifford Scott Ellis
54A01-1209-DR-410
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that C.E. repudiated his relationship with his father Clifford Ellis, but reverses the child support calculation because the court erred in requiring Ellis to pay child support for the time C.E. was living on a college campus. Remands with instructions.

Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
49A02-1210-MI-826
Miscellaneous. Reverses dismissal of Lebamoff Enterprises’ petition for judicial review. The company failed to timely file the agency record, but the original submission contained sufficient material to enable judicial review. Remands with instructions. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.R. (Minor Child) and T.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
35A05-1208-JT-435
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights and remands with instructions to enter specific factual findings and to provide an explanation as to how the findings support the judgment.

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. 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