ILNews

Opinions July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel A. Donald v. State of Indiana
23A04-0912-CR-685
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial of Donald’s request for a competency evaluation prior to his probation revocation hearing. Donald contended he was entitled to a competency evaluation pursuant to Indiana statute and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Donald’s statutory argument, but agreed the Due Process Clause may warrant a competency evaluation prior to a probation revocation hearing.

J. John Marshall and Marjorie Marshall v. Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Cindy Cain
20A03-0908-CV-366
Civil. Granted a petition for rehearing and again affirmed the trial court opinion the Marshalls had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners arising from the condition of trees on their property and further held they had breached that duty.

Trevor Brieger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0907-CR-617
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape and criminal deviate conduct as Class B felonies.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.H.; A.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
76A05-1001-JT-42
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Bruce Gunstra v. Salin Bank and Trust Company (NFP)
49A02-0912-CV-1274
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting the motion of Salin Bank and Trust Company for pre-judgment garnishment of any distributions to Gunstra by two limited liability companies of which he is a member.

Anthony Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0912-CR-1269
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Katherine S. Boehle, Deceased
49T10-0811-TA-62
Tax. Affirms Marion Probate Court’s denial of the Indiana Department of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division’s motion to correct error. The issue for review was whether the probate court erred in determining the estate’s inheritance tax liability regarding a trust that the decedent set up to provide for her son who has Down Syndrome and resides in an assisted-living facility.
 

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