The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following opinions Thursday after IL deadline:
In the Matter of Augustus J. Mendenhall
32S00-1005-DI-230
Disciplinary. Permanently disbarrs Mendall, the attorney who attacked State Rep. Ed DeLaney in 2009 and was convicted as
guilty but mentally ill on five felonies and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. Concludes that Mendenhall violated Indiana
Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by committing criminal acts, including attempted murder, that reflect adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.
In the Matter of Nancy J. Flatt-Moore
30S00-0911-DI-535
Disciplinary. Issues a public reprimand to a deputy prosecutor that the Supreme Court found surrendered her prosecutorial
discretion in plea negotiations entirely to the pecuniary demands of the victim of the crime. The court found she violated
Rule 8.4(d) that prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin
Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff’s Department
10-3706
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s entry of summary judgment for the sheriff’s department in a case where a deputy
sheriff’s probationary employment was terminated based on violations of standard operating procedures, failure to follow
orders and insufficient commitment to the job. Harris’s circumstantial evidence of discrimination falls far short of
supporting an inference that he was terminated because of his race.
The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Utility Center, Inc., d/b/a Aqua Indiana, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana
90A04-1101-PL-15
Civil. Affirms trial court judgment relating to a public utility’s property condemnation that was before the Fort Wayne
Board of Public Works. Finds the trial court can and should decline to hold a jury trial and limit its review. Holds that
judicial review of administrative determination of just compensation should be limited to the consideration of the agency
record and other evidence on abuse of discretion.
In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.H. & Ja.H.; and M.H. v. The Indiana Dept.
of Child Services (NFP)
48A05-1105-JT-225
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two children.
In Re: The Commitment of A.M. v. Community North Hospital / Gallahue Mental Health Services (NFP)
49A02-1109-MH-887
Mental Health. Affirms that sufficient evidence was presented to support an involuntary commitment and finds the appeal is
moot because the commitment expired Dec. 21, 2011.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.