ILNews

Opinions Dec. 3, 2010

December 3, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marion County Auditor & McCord Investments v. Sawmill Creek
49A02-0912-CV-1192
Civil. Affirms order granting motion filed by Sawmill Creek to set aside a tax deed the auditor issued to McCord Investments. Follows the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones to agree with the trial court that the owner of the lot, Sawmill Creek, wasn’t provided constitutionally adequate notice of the tax sale.

Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Anne W. Murphy, et al.
49A02-1003-PL-250
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the Family and Social Services Administration on the ruling that in general FSSA procedures regarding an adverse action notice satisfied procedural due process requirements. The recipients had due process rights, at a minimum including the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, but were routinely given non-specific notice of adverse decisions, hampering their right to be heard on appeal. Affirms declaratory judgment and injunction against the FSSA for violating federal law governing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and utilizing a “failure to cooperate” standard as opposed to “refusal to cooperate” standard, and had violated Perdue’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.  

Michael Gray v. D & G, Inc.
29A04-1002-CT-113
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for D&G in Gray’s negligence action against Sandstone Bar & Grill. The trial court erred in ruling that Gray could not recover from Sandstone because of his voluntary intoxication. Remands for further proceedings.

Carlton J. Harwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1005-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

T.P. v. Review Board of the Ind. Dept. of Workforce Development and Central Indiana Cooling & Heating (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-297
Civil. Affirms that T.P. was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for just cause.

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