ILNews

Opinions Aug. 9, 2013

August 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Paul Hester v. Indiana State Department of Health
12-3207
Civil. Affirms District Court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Health. The panel held that there was evidence that Hester was fired for cause, and that Hester failed to produce evidence showing age, race or gender discrimination supporting his claim that his firing violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas W. Oster, II v. State of Indiana
84A05-1208-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands a man’s conviction and aggregate 18-year sentence on charges of Class C felony burglary, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief and an enhancement as a habitual offender. The majority found sufficient evidence to affirm the burglary conviction and habitual offender finding, but ruled the mischief conviction was double jeopardy, ordering the conviction and sentence vacated. The aggregate sentence will be unchanged because the one-year sentence on the mischief charge is served concurrently with a seven-year sentence on the burglary conviction. Judge Patricia Riley would order the burglary conviction vacated, finding in dissent that the state produced insufficient evidence to support the theft intent element of the charge.

Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana
49A04-1210-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms denial of Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge. Finds although nearly 400 days had passed since Spalding’s arrest, his right to a speedy trial had not been violated. Since Spalding was held during most of that time in federal custody, Indiana did not have exclusive control and therefore Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply. The time Spalding spent in foreign jurisdictions does not count in Indiana.  

Tranell Nash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-PC-874
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Nash’s post-conviction relief petition for his conviction for Class A felony attempted robbery.

In the Matter of S.K., A Child in Need of Services; and A.R. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
84A05-1301-JC-7
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s determination that S.K. is a child in need of services.
 
Andrew Wright, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1212-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction for murder.

Nephrology Specialists, P.C., Shahabul Arfeen, M.D., Sanjeev Rastogi, M.D., Maher Ajam, M.D. and Raied Abdullah, M.D. v. Asim Chughtai, M.D., Rafael Fletes, M.D., Kupusamy Umapathy, M.D., et al. (NFP)
45A03-1212-CT-535
Civil tort. Affirms, in this rehearing, its opinion that non-compete provisions continue in certain employment contracts of the departing physicians. Clarifies that the court’s reference to an attorney’s testimony does not indicate the document was inherently unclear.

Eddie Spalding v. State of Indiana
49A04-1210-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms denial of Spalding’s motion to dismiss and discharge. Finds although nearly 400 days had passed since Spalding’s arrest, his right to a speedy trial had not been violated. Since Spalding was held during most of that time in federal custody, Indiana did not have exclusive control and therefore Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply. The time Spalding spent in foreign jurisdictions does not count in Indiana.  

 

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