ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2012

August 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

CSL Community Association, Inc. v. Clarence Ray Meador
40A01-1112-MI-579
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s grant of Meador’s motion for declaratory judgment that abrogated his obligation to pay homeowner’s association dues, finding that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the changes in the community were so radical that the original purpose of the community and the deed restrictions were destroyed, and that the trial court erred in abrogating Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments.

Michael Thalheimer v. Ramon and Stacey Halum
49A02-1203-PL-167
Civil plenary. Affirms bench trial findings and judgment in favor of Halum, concluding that Thalheimer waived his claim that Halum spoilated evidence; that the economic loss doctrine did not preclude a negligence claim; and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Thalheimer’s work was poor quality. The court denied Halum’s claim for appellate attorney fees, holding that an award on the argument that the appeal was frivolous and in bad faith was not warranted.

E.J., a minor by his mother and father Victor and Lynell Jeffrey v. Paul Okolocha, M.D., Okolocha Medical Corp., and Okolocha Medical, Pain and Weight
45A03-1201-CT-15
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Okolocha, holding that the doctor owed no duty to adoptive parents to provide prenatal medical records because authorization to release the records did not satisfy elements of HIPPA or Indiana Code 16-39-1-4(1).

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ma.J. and My.J.; and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
27A02-1112-JT-1193
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Reverses termination of mother’s parental rights, concluding that the Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the conditions resulting in children’s removal would not be remedied due to the mother’s progress over eight months in meeting areas of concern.

Dennis Feyka v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class A felony child molesting, holding that a prosecutor’s references to Feyka’s failure to testify were not fundamental error and that there was sufficient evidence to support Feyka’s conviction.

Anastazia Schmid v. State of Indiana
79A04-1110-PC-618
Post conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief, finding the appellant-defendant did not demonstrate counsels’ alleged errors were prejudicial.

Kendrice Dorsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1109-PC-563
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Appeals trial court denial of post-conviction relief for Class A felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

Elsa M. McLaughlin v. John C. Clark and Zore's, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1109-CT-862
Civil tort. Affirms trial court ruling in favor of Clark.

Gene Hildebrandt v. Pepsi America a/k/a Globe Transport (NFP)
93A02-1111-EX-1033
Executive administrative/workers’ compensation. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Warren Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1201-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms trial court order of contempt of court.

Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1204-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Marshall Jackson v. Beckie Bennett (NFP)
49A02-1112-MI-1199
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial for petition of writ of habeus corpus.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.Y.; M.Y. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1121
Juvenile/termination. Affirms trial court termination of parental rights.

Rachel Ann Ruch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1202-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment for restitution from a conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., Minor Child; A.Y., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1112-JT-702
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jeffrey M. Steffen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A04-1110-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four Class D felony counts of intimidation and theft.

Sherri Hillenburg and Dennis Hillenburg v. Paul D. Reeves and Norma J. Reeves Revocable Trust; Paul Reeves, Norma J. Reeves and John Reeves (NFP)
53A04-1111-PL-615
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.


 

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