Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hurst v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of a search warrant. To the extent the
trial court concluded that Eric Thomas was inherently credible simply because he was a cooperating citizen informant, the
trial court erred. A texted photo to Thomas corroborated the hearsay and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding
of probable cause.
Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Paul Terrell, et al.
49A04-1003-PL-198
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Terrell and the class on their suit for injunctive relief against the
state. Unsuccessful applicants for Medicaid disability benefits do not have a constitutional right to an in-person administrative
hearing. Remands for summary judgment in favor of the state.
St. Mary Medical Center v. Marsha Bakewell
45A03-1004-CT-227
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Bakewell’s motion to correct error. Bakewell’s allegation may proceed under a premises
liability theory, even though originally she also pursued as a medical malpractice claim.
Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Dev. Comm. of Marion County
49A02-1004-MI-435
Miscellaneous. Affirms that the Metropolitan Development Commission may hear appeals of decisions of the Lawrence Board of
Zoning Appeals. Reverses grant of the MDC’s motion for summary judgment because it’s not clear whether the MDC
had issued a final decision in the matter before Lightpoint appealed.
City of Kokomo, et al. v. Florence Pogue, et al.
34A02-1003-MI-356
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Kokomo’s motion to dismiss a remonstrance petition filed by a group of landowners
whose land Kokomo wants to annex. The trial court erred in finding certain waivers of the right to remonstrate in exchange
for connecting to the sewer system to be ineffective. Excluding those people’s signatures on the remonstrance petition
causes the percentage of valid landowner signatures to fall below the statutorily-mandated minimum 65 percent.
R.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1005-EX-559
Civil. Reverses denial of R.D.’s application to attend the Art Institute for retraining because of the cost difference
between that school and Ivy Tech. There is no substantial evidence supporting the review board’s denial. R.D.s’
request satisfies the “reasonable cost” requirement of 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6) and is consistent with the
purpose of the Trade Act of 1974. Remands for further proceedings. Chief Judge Baker dissents.
Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1004-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft. Remands with instructions to award the proper amount
of credit time and to correct clerical errors.
Carlos Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement.
Remands with instructions to vacate the criminal confinement conviction.
Byron Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony carjacking.
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.R.; C.P.R. v. IDCS and Guardian Ad Litem program (NFP)
47A04-1007-JT-458
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended.
Terrence L. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-0912-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class D felony maintaining
a common nuisance.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.