ILNews

Opinions June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

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