ILNews

Opinions Dec. 7, 2011

December 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Melissa K. Patrick: Yvonne Griffith v. Jason Patrick
17A03-1104-ES-190
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of the estate’s motion to dismiss a petition for survivor’s allowance filed by Melissa Patrick’s surviving spouse, Jason. The trial court did not commit clear error in determining that Ind. Code 29-1-2-14 did not divest Patrick of a survivor’s share of the estate with his late wife.

Ivelisse Martinez v. Jung I. Park, M.D., and St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc.
45A05-1012-CT-799
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Dr. Park on Martinez’s claim for medical negligence and to St. Margaret Mercy on Martinez’s claim for negligent credentialing. Martinez failed to come forth with any evidence to rebut Park’s expert opinion that his medical treatment of Martinez met the applicable standard of care, and without an underlying breach of the standard of care by Park proximately causing Martinez’s injuries, the healthcare center can’t be liable for the negligent credentialing of him.

A.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-JV-208
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia if committed by an adult.

Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Kim Rodriguez (NFP)
17A03-1105-DR-218
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Strowmatt’s motion for relief from judgment.

Joseph D. Hillenburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1103-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony manslaughter and Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Paul Hinton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1104-CR-322
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Nathaniel Jeffers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for six counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and one count of Class D felony battery.

Sybron Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1104-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Jesus D. Zuniga v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1103-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

John F. Otto, Jr. v. Scott Douglas Woodhams (NFP)
02A03-1105-SC-200
Small claim. Affirms denial of Otto’s motion to correct error on the judgment on his claim against his tenant, Woodhams.

Keyone Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-PC-274
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Supreme Court and 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. 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