ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2011

February 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.W.; M.W. v. I.D.C.S.
32A01-1007-JT-322
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Given the father’s efforts to comply with the amended plan and his release from incarceration soon after the hearing date, the trial court’s findings aren’t supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.W.; M.B. v. I.D.C.S.
32A01-1006-JT-382
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Given the Department of Child Services' agreement to give mother a second chance, her severe stroke, and her recent progress at stabilizing her life, the trial court’s findings aren’t supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Corvee, Inc. v. Mark French
84A04-1010-CC-696
Civil collections. Affirms the amount of attorney fees the trial court award Corvee in its successful collection action against French. There is no evidence that Corvee actually incurred $3,400 in attorney fees in attempting to collect the debt from French.

Steven Weinreb v. TR Developers, LLC, et al.
49A05-1003-CT-152
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Weinreb’s second Rule 60(b) motion alleging his signature on a loan guaranty was forged, negligence of his original attorney, and fraud on the part of an adverse party. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his second motion because all of his alleged grounds for relief were known or knowable at the time of his first Rule 60(B) motion. Remands for a determination of whether TR Developers is entitled to an award of appellate attorney fees.

Indiana Spine Group v. Handleman Company
93A02-1008-EX-932
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Indiana Spine Group’s application seeking full payment for being time barred by statute. The statute of limitations under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act only apply to claims of compensation and ISG’s claim seeks recovery for pecuniary liability. Remands for further proceedings.  

Antonio Gonzalez Vazquez v. State of Indiana
09A05-1008-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class D felony stalking, and Class D felony theft. His appearance in jail clothes during the bench trial did not deny him due process. There was no error in the admission of the uncontested evidence.

Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana
49A02-1002-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms denial of Boss’ motion to dismiss the charging information on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court properly denied the motion when it concluded that the enforcement of various city ordinances did not constitute punishment and that the current prosecution was therefore not a second prosecution for the same crime. Judge May concurs in result.

Elsor Matthews, Jr. v. State of Indiana
27A02-1003-PC-370
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Matthews hasn’t demonstrated the post-conviction court erred by determining he wasn’t prejudiced by any alleged error made by his trial or appellate counsel.

State of Indiana v. John Lovett
32A04-0910-CR-558
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the pretrial order declaring certain proposed evidence from the state inadmissible as irrelevant or as hearsay. The state has not demonstrated the court’s order was an abuse of discretion.

James T. Bagby, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1001-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

James Wilhelm Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1006-PC-365
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Sarah Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1006-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit burglary resulting in bodily injury.

Dennis Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-784
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while a habitual traffic offender.

Holly Ann Lewis (Staggs) v. Diana Nicholson and Gary Staggs, Jr. (NFP)
53A01-1006-DR-316
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting paternal grandmother Nicholson visitation with Holly Staggs Lewis’ minor son.

Matthew A. Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1007-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Mary K. Layton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1006-CR-681
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

The 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