ILNews

Opinions June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Joseph Agnew v. NCAA
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
11-3066
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit against the NCAA, holding plaintiffs failed to show that the NCAA’s policies limiting athletic scholarships violate the Sherman Act, because the case does not present for discussion the existence of a student athlete labor market.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Don Morris and Randy Coakes v. Brad Crain, Richard Redpath, BioSafe Engineering, LLC, Steve Biesecker, Tyler Johnson, Brandon Ross and Cris Sollars
32A01-1109-PL-414
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court summary judgment in favor of several defendants in a company ownership dispute, holding that the order included a procedure inconsistent with summary judgment.

Shepell Orr v. State of Indiana
45A03-1107-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms two murder convictions imposed by the trial court, ruling the court did not reversibly err in allowing the state to try to impeach a witness with extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement.

Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools v. Gary Grant v. Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools and Stanley Hall
52A04-1107-PL-352
Civil plenary. The trial court erred in denying Peru School Corp.’s motion for judgment on the evidence as it pertains to Grant’s employment as an at-will custodian because there is no substantial evidence of detrimental reliance, which is required to defeat the presumption of at-will employment. But because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to why Grant was fired, the appellate court finds the trial court properly denied the school corporation’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the issue of wrongful termination to go to a jury. Holds Grant is only entitled to nearly $2,500 in damages, not the $175,000 awarded by the jury. Remands for further proceedings.

Sandra Mourfield v. Melvin Mourfield (NFP)
48A05-1111-DR-666
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s grant of father’s petition to modify child support, holding the father’s retirement and reduced income were a result of his intentional criminal misconduct. Remands for the trial court to enter a new order reflecting father’s original child support obligation.

Corey Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-612
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate either Class D felony criminal confinement or Class D felony pointing a firearm, along with the corresponding sentence, holding that the two charges arose from the same offense. Affirms the trial court in all other regards.

Indiana State Police v. Earnest Howard, Jr. (NFP)
45A04-1110-MI-568
Miscellaneous. Holds the trial court’s order overturning the decision of an Administrative Law Judge was in error, as was its denial of Indiana State Police’s motion to dismiss Howard’s petition. Reverses and remands to the trial court to reinstate the ALJ’s decision.

Courtney G. Tressler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A05-1112-CR-699
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.S., N.S., and M.S.; and A.S. and D.F., and J.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1111-JT-1123
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and the two fathers of her three children.

Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc. v. 5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-676
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Filmcraft Laboratories, holding that a Continuing Guaranty agreement does not show that Filmcraft would be liable for environmental clean-up costs. Affirms the trial court in other regards.

William Capps, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1108-CR-694
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s decision to deny Capps’ motion for a directed verdict and remands for the court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery and to enter a judgment of conviction for and sentence on the inherently included offense of Class A misdemeanor battery.  

Tina R. Like Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A05-1111-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony neglect of a dependant, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

 

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