ILNews

Opinions Jan. 11, 2012

January 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel E. Serban v. State of Indiana
02A03-1106-CR-285
Criminal. Declines to revise Serban’s 11-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony corrupt business influence and Class D felony theft. Serban failed to demonstrate his sentence is inappropriate, and his stealing from his clients injured not only them, but also the legal profession.

Nicholas Williams v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-CR-266
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy’s motion to quash Williams’ subpoena for a certified copy of “any and all” of Williams’ prescription records. The confidentiality provisions of the applicable statute were enacted to protect Williams’ physician-patient privilege and pharmacist-patient privilege and he waived those privileges by requesting his prescription records in the exercise of his constitutional right to present a complete defense to the charged crimes. Williams’ request is sufficiently particular, the requested information is material to his defense, not all the information requested would be available from his doctors and the board has failed to show a paramount interest in not disclosing the information.

Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana
33A04-1104-PL-199
Civil plenary. Affirms two orders entered granting summary judgment to New Castle in its suit against Dave’s Excavating on breach of a construction contract and against Liberty Mutual under a performance bond. Dave’s refusal to resume work on the project constituted a breach of construction contract, and Liberty Mutual did not show that it asserted its rights to elect how to mitigate damages “promptly.”

Anthony J. Rehl, Sr. and Bessie A. Rehl v. Robert V. Billetz and Joy A. Billetz
52A05-1105-PL-246
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of the Billetzes regarding an access easement. The trial court did not err in making its findings of facts related to the relative use or increased use of the easement area and interference with the use of the Rehl property.

Clark County Drainage Board and Clark County Board of Commissioners v. Robert Isgrigg
10A05-1102-PL-68
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment for Isgrigg. Isgrigg, in his official capacity as county surveyor, had standing to seek declaratory relief from the Clark County Drainage Board’s actions. The drainage board’s subdivision project didn’t establish a regulated drain under Indiana Code, and therefore, the board wasn’t required to utilize the county surveyor. The board’s removal of an obstruction from a natural watercourse without the county surveyor’s participation did violate Indiana Code.

Charles Lawrence, Sr. v. State of Indiana
02A03-1105-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The state presented sufficient substantive evidence to establish that Lawrence was in his sister’s apartment around the time of the shooting and had the opportunity to commit murder.

Shandaleigha M. Tharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1105-CR-292
Criminal. Vacates Tharp’s aggregate 27-year sentence following a guilty plea for various offenses, including forgery, burglary, and theft and imposes an aggregate sentence of 19.5 years, with 14.5 executed and five years suspended.

Diyon Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Arnold W. Cook v. Consolidated Roofing, Inc. (NFP)
34A02-1104-CC-339
Civil collection. Affirms judgment substantially in favor of Consolidated Roofing on Cook’s complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.

Vincent Barrett and Sarah Barrett v. City of Logansport, Indiana; Michael Nicoll, in his capacity as Sexton of Mount Hope Cemetery; and James McDonald (NFP)
09A02-1103-PL-252
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Logansport, Nicoll and McDonald on the Barretts’ claims for negligence, breach of contract, fraud and injunctive relief.

R.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1107-JT-309
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
 

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