ILNews

Opinions Aug. 19, 2011

August 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Tax Court
Miller Brewing Company v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-0607-TA-69
Tax. Grants summary judgment for Miller Brewing Co. and against the Department of State Revenue. For the years at issue, Miller did nothing more than follow the law and its carrier-pickup sales were not Indiana sales and therefore not allocable to Indiana.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
George A. Feuston v. State of Indiana
38A02-1011-CR-1175
Criminal. Affirms denial of Feuston’s motion for discharge of his Class D felony theft charge in Jay County. He caused the delay in the case by absconding and failing to appear at his pretrial conference. Chief Judge Robb concurs in a separate opinion.

S.W. v. E.W. (NFP)

49A02-1104-DR-367
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the dissolution order modifying father E.W.’s child support obligation following a hearing. Remands with instructions to enter an order providing that mother S.W. retain the annual tax exemption for the child.

Zachary Wolfe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1011-CR-1284
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Wolfe serve previously suspended sentence.

Anthony Hollowell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-736
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Crystal A. Ridgeway v. Kinser Group II, LLC, et al. (NFP)
53A01-1012-CT-624
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Kaitlynn Sturgis on Ridgeway’s complaint alleging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and defamation. Remands for further proceedings.

Theodore Schwartz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1102-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary, two counts of Class C felony robbery, Class D felony residential entry, Class D felony auto theft, and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Gary W. Moody v. City of Franklin (NFP)
41A05-1011-PL-693
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal of order denying motion for an injunction following a hearing.

Donald Huesing v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1316
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

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