ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2014

February 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: TLC, a Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana
60A01-1308-JV-377
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of TLC to the Indiana Department of Correction. Finds TLC did not receive unequal treatment and his due process rights were not violated. Rules that the juvenile court had an adequate factual basis to conclude that TLC was guilty of what would be the crime of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Concludes the state sufficiently proved that TLC committed what would have been battery, a Class B misdemeanor, had it been committed by an adult.  

In the Matter of: S.G. and M.H. (Minor Children), Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, and P.G. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1307-JC-612
Juvenile. Affirms the judgment of the juvenile court. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support the Children in Need of Services adjudication.

Tommy Dawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

Timothy W. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1306-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Woolum’s probation and order that he serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Ronrico J. Hatch v. Kathleen Brita (NFP)
02A05-1307-SC-374
Small claim. Affirms dismissal on grounds that the limitation period had passed.

Don Rudd v. Adam Compton (NFP)
29A04-1306-PL-294
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Rudd’s motion to correct error. Finds the trial court did not err in ordering Rudd to compensate Adam Compton for $24,684.29 in damages to his RV.

Patrick M. McVady v. Rebecka R. Pickett-McVady (NFP)
91A02-1308-DR-675
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Patrick McVady’s request to modify his court-ordered life insurance payments and reduce his child support payments.

John C. Oosta v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms Oosta’s conviction of two counts of child molesting, both Class C felonies, and his aggregate 12-year sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana 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. 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