The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 24:
Indiana Supreme Court
Curtis Outlaw v. State of Indiana
49S02-1006-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms Court of Appeals’ reversal of trial court’s conviction of and sentence for Class A misdemeanor
conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Although the state proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the state failed to
present any evidence on the element of endangerment, which would make it a Class A misdemeanor. Operating a vehicle while
intoxicated on its own is a Class C misdemeanor.
Steven T. Marbley-El v. State of Indiana
71S03-1006-PC-329
Post-conviction. Finds Marbley-El was not entitled to a jury determination of the factors that led to his six-year sentence,
and the trial court correctly did not advise him that he was.
Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Peter S. Bezich, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
10-8013
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen
Civil. Remands to state court. Concludes Bezich’s claim “relates to the rights, duties, ... and obligations relating
to or created by or pursuant to ... [a] security,” as defined in the 1933 Act, therefore the District Court has no jurisdiction.
Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Fred
Giddings v. State of Indiana
40A01-0909-PC-455
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Giddings’ petition for post-conviction relief. He raised one issue on appeal: whether
his appellate counsel was ineffective because she did not raise on direct appeal the issue of unanimous verdicts.
Franklin
Electric Company Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-0911-EX-1121
Civil. Affirms determination of a liability administrative law judge from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
that Franklin Electric Company Inc.’s two subsidiary corporations, Franklin Electric Sales and Franklin Electric Manufacturing,
are not new successor employers under the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act.
Weigand
Construction Co. Inc. and Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. Stephens Fabrication Inc. and Ball State University Board of Trustees
18A02-0910-CV-953
Civil. Concludes Stephens’ claims against Weigand, Weigand’s Surety, and Ball State University survived bankruptcy
proceedings. Therefore, Stephens is entitled to the unpaid sums under the base contract: $39,408.09 plus attorney fees, prejudgment
interest including the periods of time before and during the bankruptcy proceeding, postjudgment interest, and costs of collection
to Stephens. Also concludes Stephens’ claim for additional compensation was untimely under the terms of the relevant
contracts and that Weigand is entitled to enforce the contractual provisions in this regard.
M.B.
v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1001-JV-59
Juvenile. Affirms M.B.’s commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction.
Involuntary
Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of Z.H.; A.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1002-JT-49
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
In
the Matter of R.J.K., a child alleged to be a delinquent child v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-0909-JV-539
Juvenile. Affirms court’s finding that R.J.K. was a delinquent child who committed the offense of sexual battery, a
Class D felony if committed by an adult.
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.