ILNews

Opinions June 10, 2011

June 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Liberty Country Club v. Landowners of Country Club Estates Housing Development
81A01-1007-MI-364
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the landowners of the housing development, concluding that under the terms of the covenant, Liberty is required to provide potable water to the homeowners in the development.

Brenda Bell v. Grandville Cooperative, Inc., et al.
49A04-1101-CT-2
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grandville Cooperative and Kirkpatrick Management in Bell’s personal injury negligence action against Grandville. There is a question of fact as to whether Grandville breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Gerald Foster
02A03-1010-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms grant of Foster’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s warrantless entry and in-home arrest of Foster was unreasonable and violated Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The connection between the arrest and the securing of statements discloses near constant interaction and exploitation of the arrest and precludes a finding of attenuation. Judge May concurs in result.

D.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-JV-1201
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of D.D. to be a delinquent child based on true findings for one count of aiding, inducing, or causing rape, and one count of criminal confinement.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reed Hodges, et al. (NFP)
55A01-1007-MF-334
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order dismissing Swafford from the bank’s complaint to foreclose on a mortgage executed in favor of the bank’s assignor by Reed and Angelia Hodges. Remands for further proceedings.

Martha Tichenor v. Dana Dodson (NFP)
41A04-1010-PO-667
Protective order. Affirms grant of civil protection order against Tichenor.

Harold L. Tice Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1010-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony and contributing to the delinquency of a minor as a Class A misdemeanor.

Walter L. Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-691
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Matthew Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-552
Criminal. Reverses denial of request for permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Remands for further proceedings.

Leland Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1011-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

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. 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