ILNews

Opinions Dec. 12, 2013

December 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson
49S05-1303-DR-199
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court order with respect to the calculation of Gillian Johnson’s health insurance premium credit and application of Eric Johnson’s Social Security Retirement benefits. Summarily affirms the Court of Appeals as to the remaining issues. The trial court’s approach was appropriate in light of the flexibility afforded by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana
49A05-1304-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly violating a protective order. Smith was aware of the protective order and knew he could not contact his ex-girlfriend or come over to her home without the police present.

Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist
23A04-1306-DR-277
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that Charity Lindquist was in contempt for denying Cory Lindquist his Christmas 2012 time. Reverses portion of order that determined the children were not allowed to spend any “one on one” unsupervised time with Charity’s boyfriend. There is no evidence that she is an unfit mother or that the boyfriend posed a danger or detriment to the children. Remands for the trial court to craft an order that will not deny Cory the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time in accordance with the guidelines, but also to permit the children to interact with Charity’s boyfriend on an unsupervised basis should she so desire, so long as Cory’s relationship with the children is not undermined or thwarted.

Paul D. Schoolman v. Tamzen L. Schoolman (NFP)
52A02-1304-DR-344
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of property in dissolution of marriage.

Jacquelyn S. Johnson-Taefi v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and AME Cleaning Services, LLC (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-484
Agency action. Affirms determination that Johnson-Taefi is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Zachariah Brownie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-3
Criminal. Judge Brown writes a dissent from the denial of a petition for rehearing, believing the court should reverse the probation revocation order and remand for a new hearing.

Joseph Rothell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1303-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of a portion of Rothell’s previously suspended sentence.

Jeffrey Allen Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1304-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery upon a law enforcement officer.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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