ILNews

Opinions April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gariup Construction Co. v. Carras-Szany-Kuhn & Associates, et al.
45A04-1007-PL-429
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the architect Carras-Szany-Kuhn and the successful bidder and denied unsuccessful bidder Gariup Construction’s claim alleging the architect; Behling & Son, the successful bidder; and others colluded to restrict bidding in violation of the Indiana Antitrust Act. The designated evidence doesn’t present a genuine issue of material fact from which a factfinder could reasonably infer that the architect and successful bidder colluded to restrict bidding. Declines to find that the architect and successful bidder are entitled to appellate attorneys fees.

Larry D. Mitchell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court did not err in finding that Mitchell failed to sustain his burden of proof on his ineffective assistance claims.

Larry Pryor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms adjudication as a habitual offender after being found guilty of burglary, theft, and possession of paraphernalia.

First Consumer Credit, Inc. v. Sho-Pro of Indiana, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1010-CC-1245
Civil collections. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Sho-Pro of Indiana in First Consumer Credit Inc.’s action alleging breach of contract. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of FCC.

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. 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