ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2010

August 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Jeffrey Brunner
57A04-1003-CR-121
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions trial court’s October 2009 order modifying Brunner’s August 2000 conviction from a Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor. The parties raised two issues for review: whether the state’s appeal was authorized by law, and whether the trial court erred in granting Brunner’s petition for relief. The Court of Appeals held that Brunner’s request, nine years after the trial court’s entry of judgment, to reduce the Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor was a petition for post-conviction relief, from which the state may appeal. The COA also held Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-7(b) does not authorize the relief granted.
 
James D. Callaway, et al. v. Hannah Callaway, et al.
28A04-0908-CV-467
Civil. Affirms jury verdict upholding validity of the Last Will and Testament of John L. Callaway. His sons appealed on the issues of whether the will was published in accordance with Indiana Code Section 29-1-5-3; whether the will was executed and witnessed in accordance with Indiana Code Section 29-1-5-3; and whether the trial court abused its discretion when it rejected one of the sons’ proposed jury instructions.
 
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. Sargent Electric Company Ryerson Tull, Inc., et al.
45A04-0909-CV-524
Civil. Affirms grant of summary judgment to the third-party defendant, Sargent Electric Company. Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Inc., the third-party plaintiff in the trial court, appealed the grant of summary judgment and raised the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred when it granted Sargent’s motion for summary judgment. COA held Sargent did not breach its duty of care to Raytheon and that Raytheon is not entitled to indemnification from Sargent.
 
Rebecca Abbott v. Mainsource Financial Group
93A02-0912-EX-1261
Civil. Affirms single denial of Abbott’s application for adjustment of claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana against her employer, MainSource Financial Group. Abbott sought compensation for two prescription medications she alleged she must take indefinitely as a result of her work-related injury. A single hearing judge concluded the evidence did not support her contention that the prescriptions were necessitated by her work-related injury. When she petitioned the full board to review the single hearing judge’s decision, the board affirmed the judge’s decision following a hearing.
 
Patrick Roberts, et al. v. Robert A. Feitz, et al.
71A04-0910-CV-581
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellees-defendants Robert and Bob Feitz’ counterclaim, determining that the Feitzes are legal owners of the disputed access lane.
 
Crystal Summerlot v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1002-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance.

David L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-PC-141
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Lester Rowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-PC-1061
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Justin A. Heintzelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-0911-CR-648
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while suspended.
 
William Scott Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1003-CR-162
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft and Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.
 
Cynthia A. Soames v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources and Thomas A. Young/Young Oil Company (NFP)
49A05-0912-CV-726
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Soames’ verified petition for judicial review of the Natural Resource Commission’s final order requiring her to refrain from interfering with Thomas Young/Young Oil Company’s efforts to plug three oil wells on her property.
 
Angel Braster v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1002-PL-121
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order upholding a finding of the Department of Child Services, which substantiated that Braster had abused a child in her care.
 
Julian D. Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1004-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery, a Class B felony; and pointing a firearm, a Class D felony.
 
Larry O. Holder Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1002-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation and imposing the previously suspended portion of Holder’s sentence for burglary, a Class B felony.

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. 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