ILNews

Opinions Aug. 9, 2011

August 9, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Buse, Kathleen Payne, et al. v. Trustees of the Luce Township Regional Sewer District
74A05-1009-PL-590
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s conclusion that four counts of the property owners’ complaint constitute a public lawsuit against the Luce Township Regional Sewer District, pursuant to Indiana Code 34-6-2-124. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., et al. v. Save the Valley, et al.
49A02-1011-MI-1178
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s determination that Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. (IKEC) may not relitigate the issue of associational standing arising from Save the Valley, Inc. v. Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp., 820 N.E.2d 677 (2005). Holds that law-of-the-case doctrine bars IKEC from doing so, and that the Indiana Supreme Court has previously held that groups challenging IKEC’s solid waste permit could seek administrative review under the doctrine of associational standing.

Stephen M. Scheckel v. NLI, Inc.
02A04-1010-SC-645
Small claim. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of NLI. Holds that the trial court erred when it found that the condition of the tree on NLI’s property that damaged the appellant’s property did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Remands for the entry of judgment consistent with the COA opinion.

Brian Haehl v. David Montgomery and Phyliss Crumbo
22A01-1007-TR-319
Trust. Affirms trial court’s denial of attorney fees and additional compensation in favor of Haehl, reverses the court’s award of attorney fees in favor of the appellees, and remands for the court to revise its 2010 order consistent with the COA opinion. Holds that the court’s award of attorney fees under Ind. Code 30-4-3-22(e) was erroneous.

Bethany Quiring, Linda Ann Johnston f/k/a Linda Ann Lougher, et al. v. Geico General Insurance Company
52A02-1012-CT-1434
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Quiring’s motion to dismiss or stay, finding she was not a resident of her mother’s household when she sought underinsured motorist benefits under a GEICO insurance policy issued to her mother.

Joseph A. Kelley v. Jagdish Patel, Jayandra Patel, d/b/a Economy Inn and Indiana Insurance
79A02-1010-CT-1212
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on the estate’s claim of spoliation of evidence, holding that a cause of action is not available under the facts of the case.

Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A01-1101-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Ronald Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-3
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and resisting law enforcement.

Michelle Hager v. Robert and Sue Faris (NFP)
32A01-1103-CT-89
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees.

Gabriel L. Hill v. Jana E. Hill (NFP)
49A02-1009-DR-1193
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s award of attorney fees to wife and finds the amount appropriate. Affirms division of marital estate and child support order.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.K., et al.; D.A. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
29A02-1101-JT-51
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jennifer Curts v. David Curts (NFP)
29A02-1010-DR-1138
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s judgment in divorce, stating appellant failed to present a cogent argument on any claims on appeal.

Jeremy Klakamp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1003-CR-189
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Tommy D. Ford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1009-PC-610
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.D., et al.; J.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
03A01-1102-JT-46
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Danielle L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

The Matter of the 2008 Hancock County Tax Sale (NFP)
30A01-1102-PL-56
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s order, holding that the court committed prima facie error in finding it lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of appellant’s claim. Remands to the trial court with instructions to address appellant’s petition for payment of redemption interest.

Gary Moody v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1012-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms conviction of disorderly conduct.

J.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1101-JD-27
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s placement of J.G. with the Department of Correction.

Beverly A. Fussner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A05-1012-CR-812
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to allow the state to reopen its case after the state had rested.

James Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1102-CR-106
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

I.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-JV-41
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s order that I.M. pay restitution, holding there is no evidence that the court engaged in inquiry sufficient to determine whether I.M. would be able to pay restitution. Remands for new restitution hearing.

Andre L. Gorman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1010-CR-640
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug and related charges.

Robert Holland III v. Country Wide Home Loans, Inc. (NFP)
45A03-1008-MF-487
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion set aside judgment, finding no allegations justifying relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Denies appellee’s request for attorney fees, finding Holland did not pursue his claim in bad faith.  

Terry T. Miles, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1103-CR-117
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that Miles violated the terms of his home detention.

Dean C. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1011-PC-1361
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Aaron Davidson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1005-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

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