ILNews

Opinions Jan. 25, 2011

January 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of L.C.E.; D.H. v. J.H. and J.D.E.
47A05-1008-AD-474
Adoption. Reverses adoption of L.C.E. by his maternal grandfather J.D.E. The stepfather, D.H., had custody of L.C.E. and his consent is required for the adoption of L.C.E. The trial court erred in granting the grandfather’s petition prior to the expiration of the 30 days provided for objection to be filed and prior to receiving D.H.’s properly filed objection.

Jeffery T. Curry, et al. v. Andrew Whitaker, et al.
49A02-1004-CC-398
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment for Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez on the Currys’ complaint for invasion of privacy by intrusion, invasion of privacy by false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Darlene Baca v. RPM, Inc., c/o Patty Brown
79A02-1006-SC-655
Small claim. Reverses order by Tippecanoe Superior Court 4 that Baca, a disabled and indigent small claims litigant, perform four hours of community service to have her claim set for a hearing. The policy is not a duly promulgated local rule and is unenforceable.

Phyllis Hardy, et al. v. Mary Jo Hardy
51A01-1005-PL-248
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Mary Jo Hardy’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of Phyllis Hardy and other plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their complaint for declaratory judgment/constructive trust over insurance proceeds. A certified copy of the dissolution decree wasn’t received by the appropriate office before the date of Carlos Hardy’s death and the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts the plaintiffs’ state law claims.  

Frank J. Akey, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Wayne Akey v. Parkview Hospital, et al.
02A04-1007-CT-441
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for defendants Parkview Hospital, Dr. McEowen, and Professional Emergency Physicians Inc. in Frank Akey’s complaint for damages following the death of Wayne Akey. The trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Mirro’s expert testimony on causation was an abuse of discretion. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.T.; R.T. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1006-JT-731
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Martel K. Settles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1003-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery.

Shelisa Wimbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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