ILNews

Opinions Jan. 22, 2013

January 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lula L. Jenkins, et al. v. South Bend Community School Corp.
71A03-1206-PL-260
Civil plenary.  Reverses summary judgment for South Bend Community School Corp. on Jenkins’ action seeking an independent determination of whether she was discharged for just cause from her position as a bus driver. The advisory nature of the arbitrator’s award allows the non-prevailing party, here SBCSC, to reject the award, thus triggering judicial review, either under the Uniform Arbitration Act’s provisions or for a determination whether the facts found by the arbitrator support the award. Remands for further proceedings.

Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-361
Criminal. Reverses denial of Sanders’ motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop for tinted windows. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Sanders for investigatory purposes at the time he observed Sanders’ vehicle.

David Frohwerk v. Mark Levenhagen (NFP)
46A04-1204-MI-211
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of verified petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that Frohwerk was denied credit time.

Jacqueline R. Clements v. Clinton County, Indiana, by and through the Board of Commissioners of the County of Clinton, Ted R. Johnson, Barbara Conner, Michael W. Conner and William Clinton (NFP)
54A05-1205-PL-272
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Clements’ motion to correct error, which challenged the dismissal of her counterclaims against the county and other defendants and her claims for malicious prosecution.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.W., K.O.A., and K.E.A., Minor Children, and Their Father, O.W.: O.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1205-JT-285
Juvenile.  Affirms termination of parental rights.

Aaron Di-Shon Windom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony attempted battery and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Anthony Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1207-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of previously suspended sentence.

Jason T. Myers v. Linda Phillips, Tippecanoe County Assessor and Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Unclaimed Property Division (NFP)
79A05-1209-PL-493
Civil plenary.  Affirms dismissal of Myers’ lawsuit seeking reimbursement of a $250 bond that was posted by his grandmother on his behalf in 1997.

Donald L. Swain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A05-1206-CR-320
Criminal.  Affirms order revoking probation under three different cause numbers.

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