ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2012

December 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday.
Indiana Tax Court

Miller Pipeline Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1012-TA-64
Tax. Denies Department of State Revenue’s motion for summary judgment on Miller Pipeline Corp.’s appeal of the department’s final determination denying its claim for refund of gross retail (sales) and use tax paid between 2005 and 2007.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

David Vance v. Francisco Lozano, et al.
02A03-1203-SC-142
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Rock Solid and Lozano on Vance’s breach of contract claim. Finds the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana
46A03-1202-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms denial of Gilliland’s motion to dismiss the charging information charging Gilliland with two counts of Class B misdemeanor failure to report child abuse or neglect, but finds the state does not need to amend the information to omit any offense alleged prior to Oct. 5, 2007. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Bailey concurs in part and dissents in part.

Darrell Woodruff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-247
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.R., et al. (Minor Children); and T.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
52A02-1205-JC-388
Juvenile. Affirms finding that the four minor children were children in need of services.

Henry Lee Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony battery.

In Re: the Paternity of E.M.T.; C.J.G. v. M.C.T. (NFP)
48A02-1203-JP-260
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s request to change E.M.T.’s surname.

Darnell C. Miller, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1110-PC-703
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paul Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Stacey Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Guardianship of L.R.T. and A.J.B.; R.L. and P.L. (Guardians) v. A.B. and R.B. (Parents)
39A04-1208-GU-398
Guardianship. Affirms order terminating guardianship of L.T. and A.J.B. upon the motion of mother A.B.
 

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