ILNews

Opinions July 5, 2011

July 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry E. Snell v. K-Industrial, LLC (NFP)
02A03-1010-CC-523
Collections. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of K-Industrial and trial court’s partial summary judgment in favor of Larry Snell. Reverses award of attorney fees to Snell, holding that Snell’s complaint did not arise from his agreement with K-Industrial.

Jasper L. Chastain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1009-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

John Battles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1279
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.  

Duron Reese Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1012-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery.

Michael D. Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A03-1011-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms consecutive sentences for two counts of resisting law enforcement.

Christopher C. Craft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1010-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony burglary.

Claude R. Fisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery.

Kathy Atkinson v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (NFP)
49A02-1101-PL-28
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s decision on judicial review affirming the State of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration’s finding that Kathy Atkinson owed $4,956 due to overpayment of food stamp benefits.

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