ILNews

Opinions Feb. 6, 2013

February 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Walter E. Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A04-1112-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to use Smith’s tendered instruction because the substance of that instruction was covered by instructions given by the court nor in refusing to discharge Smith pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial the cocaine evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.

Pekin Insurance Company v. Jose and Carol Hanquier and Joseph Hall

55A04-1208-CT-401
Civil tort. Reverses Pekin Insurance Co.’s motion to correct error. The trial court erred when it failed to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin policy as required by Indiana Code 34-57-2-3(a). Remands with instructions.

James Newman v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Gagan LLC (NFP)
93A02-1206-EX-466
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Joshua D. Preston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1206-CR-291
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies neglect of a dependent and battery.

Roman Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., and A.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1206-JT-285
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jason Tye Myers v. Stason L. Wiete, Unknown Party, and W. Lafayette Police Department (NFP)

79A04-1206-CT-323
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for defendants on Myers’ action for malicious prosecution.

Amber D. Courtney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

56A03-1206-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of narcotic drug because it occurred within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.D., and A.D., minor children, and S.D., the mother: S.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County C.A.S.A. (NFP)
45A03-1205-JT-242
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Shaun L. Steele v. Correctional Industrial Facility (NFP)
48A04-1207-SC-383
Small claim. Affirms decision to set aside default judgment entered against Correctional Industrial Facility.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D., J.D., J.D.,L.D., and La.D., (Minor Children), and J.D. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A05-1206-JT-388
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jarrell Marcell Ballard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1206-CR-319
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Shannon N. Maiden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1206-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as a Class A felony because the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.

David Edmonds v. Menards, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1209-EX-712
Agency action. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s determination that Edmonds suffers a 10 percent permanent partial impairment rating with regard to his spinal injuries, and reverses the board’s determination relating to Edmonds’ right shoulder injury. Remands to the board for a determination of whether Edmonds suffers permanent impairment with respect to his shoulder injury.

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