ILNews

Opinions Feb. 3, 2012

February 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:

Michael B. Adams v. State of Indiana
29S02-1109-CR-542
Criminal. Affirms suspension of Adams’ driver’s license, registration and the ability to register other vehicles following his conviction of possession of marijuana. The state must demonstrate that a defendant made more than an incidental use of a motor vehicle in committing his offense, but once the state makes this showing, then a trial court must order the defendant’s driver’s license, registration and ability to register other vehicles suspended. The court may exercise its discretion only in setting the length of that suspension.

Friday’s opinions

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Larry Davis v. Kris Ockomon, et al.
10-2589
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms finding that the position of senior humane officer for the city of Anderson was a policymaking position and therefore Davis could be dismissed for political reasons. City ordinances authorized the senior humane officer to exercise policymaking discretion.

United States of America v. Gregory G. Eller
10-2465
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Rejects Eller’s 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) void-for-vagueness claim and states there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-487
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony domestic battery and remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery and for resentencing.

John D. Jenkins Revocable Living Trust, John D. Jenkins, Trustee v. Peru Utility Service Board, City of Peru and Peru Common Council (NFP)
52A02-1106-PL-540
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court finding that no taking occurred by Peru Utilities, the city of Peru and Peru Common Council and decision to not enter a declaratory judgment order as to the rights and obligations of the trust and the defendants with regard to payment of fees.

Roslyn Adkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony battery, enhanced for the use of a deadly weapon.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1105-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for a new trial.
 

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