ILNews

Opinions Feb. 13, 2013

February 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jesus Uribe
11-3590
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms decision granting Uribe’s motion to suppress heroin found after traffic stop. The government failed to show that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Uribe’s vehicle to investigate why its registration was tied to a white Nissan whereas the Nissan Uribe was driving was blue. Investigatory stops based on color discrepancies alone are insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel L. Tolley, Deceased; First Merchants Bank, N.A. v. Duane Earl Tolley, and Betty June Tolley
52A02-1208-EU-671
Estate, unsupervised. Reverses summary judgment to the estate of Samuel Tolley. Concludes that the Due Process Clause applies to Ind. Code 29-1-7-7. Even though First Merchants had actual notice of Samuel Tolley’s death, the phone call from the attorney for the personal representatives did not meet the requirement of informing the bank of the time period for filing a claim. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1207-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.C., Minor Child, K.W., Mother, and J.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1206-JT-300
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights of mother and father.

Julia Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1204-CR-300
Criminal. Reverses order Patterson pay $50 supplemental public defender fee and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Lee Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)

61A01-1207-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: T.B., M.B., and L.B., (Minor Children), and J.B., (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

02A03-1207-JT-336
Juvenile. Reverses termination of father’s parental rights and remands with instructions that the trial court enter additional findings to support its judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions 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. 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