ILNews

Opinions Dec. 1, 2011

December 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bridgett Stevens v. Housing Authority of South Bend, Indiana, et al. and State of Indiana
10-2724
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for defendants on Stevens’ federal claims alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the 14th Amendment and the decline by the court to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Injunctive relief is no longer available to Stevens because she voluntarily left her public housing apartment after receiving two additional notices indicating that she must leave due to violating housing policy. The first notice was therefore lawfully issued, and Stevens has no claim for emotional distress caused by a wholly lawful action.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Hobson v. State of Indiana
36A01-1103-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness. Hobson admitted firing several shots at a Chevy Blazer as it drove away, and Andrew Kern’s Blazer was struck by several bullets. This is sufficient evidence to establish that Hobson fired the shots.

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