ILNews

Opinions Feb. 10, 2011

February 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association v. J.M. Corporation and Ralph Reed
48S00-1003-PL-158
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of J.M. Corporation’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Indiana Code Section 13-20-2-11, which would require further review and approval of zoning, violated the Indiana Constitution and remands for further proceedings. Declines to decide the constitutional issue, but finds because J.M. Corporation’s facilities accepted wasted before April 1, 2008, Indiana Code Section 13-20-2-11 doesn’t apply.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christine and Ivan Kolozsvari v. John Doe, M.D., Jane Doe, R.N., Kelley Branchfield, R.Ph., and Hook SuperX, LLC
32A04-1008-CT-525
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment against the Kolozsvaris and in favor of Kelley Branchfield and Hook Super X (CVS) in the Kolozsvaris’ suit alleging negligence and loss of consortium after Christine took a prescribed drug that caused kidney failure and the pharmacist disregarded warnings about drug interactions. In light of the evidence, CVS and Branchfield had a duty of care to Christine to either warn her of the side effects of the drug or to withhold the medication in accordance with Indiana Code Section 25-26-13-16 and Pharmacy Board rule 1-33-2. Remands for further proceedings.

Beneficial Indiana, Inc. v. Joy Properties, LLC
02A05-1005-PL-260
Civil plenary. Reverses order to the Allen County treasurer and auditor that it disburse to Joy Properties the surplus funds from a tax sale of real estate in Fort Wayne that Beneficial had an interest in. Beneficial has a more substantial interest in the real estate and that equity requires disbursement of the tax surplus funds to Beneficial.

Nexus Group Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Service and Alan Landing
46A03-1007-PL-418
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Heritage Appraisal Service and Landing in Nexus’ complaint for defamation per se, defamation per quod, and punitive damages. It is undisputed that Heritage’s statements related to a matter of public interest and that Nexus failed to designate any evidence showing that Heritage acted in bad faith or without a reasonable basis in law and fact when it made its statements in the letter. Remands for a hearing on appellate attorney fees.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Jerry Huston, et al. (NFP)
77A01-1009-MI-511
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Justise’s pro se complaint against Jerry Huston and Karen Richards alleging they denied him access to legal research materials while he was in the Wabash Valley Correctional facility.

Ernest Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony attempted theft and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motorized vehicle.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.B. & M.B.; K.A. & B.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
33A01-1007-JT-379
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parent-child relationship.

Willie G. Pargo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-573
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class C felony possession with a firearm, and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Charles Durham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-PC-363
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Stephan D. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-631
Criminal. Affirms sentence for voluntary manslaughter as a Class A felony.

Daniel A. Demaree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1005-CR-295
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for five counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Rextori Pizza, et al. v. Dutch Mill Plaza, LLC (NFP)
90A02-1008-CC-920
Civil collections. Affirms order entering final judgment in favor of Dutch Mill Plaza on its complaint against Rextori for breach of contract and on Rextori’s counterclaims for wrongful eviction and conversion. Remands for a hearing on appellate attorney fees.

Douglas Alan Baker, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1006-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of maintaining a common nuisance as a Class D felony.

James McMahon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

Michael A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1001-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

L.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-JV-766
Juvenile. Reverses order modifying probation and suspended commitment and remands for further proceedings.

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