ILNews

Opinions June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keith D. Jackson v. State of Indiana
20A03-1105-CR-222
Criminal. Reverses sentence for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and remands for resentencing, holding the trial court erred by imposing a suspended sentence of four years contrary to the accepted plea agreement.

W.D., a minor by his parents R.D. and S.D., and R.D. and S.D., individually v. City of Nappanee
20A05-1112-CT-698
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of city of Nappanee, holding that there was no breach of duty of care on the city’s part when a child was found floating face-down in a public pool and rescued by lifeguards who resuscitated him.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.W., K.K., Ke.K., & L.W.; and J.K. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
85A05-1109-JT-591
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights to his four minor children, holding that the trial court’s findings supported the conclusion that the conditions causing the children’s removal from their father’s home will not be remedied.

Teri Woenkhaus v. David Woenkhaus (NFP)
34A02-1111-DR-1041
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s property division order in dissolution of marriage, but remands for the court to award the parties’ income tax refunds to the wife.

Eric Liscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-715
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for felony murder, Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Robert Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and Class B felony robbery.

M. Loren Fugate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1110-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and home detention and the order that Fugate serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Frank E. Puzynski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1111-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Jermaine Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-PC-881
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to vacate Young’s conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine, holding that his attorney’s failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirms the court in all other respects.

Mark Van Eaton and Cynthia Van Eaton Vallimont v. German American Bancorp (NFP)
42A01-1108-MF-434
Mortgage foreclosure. Remands for the court to amend receivership order.

Faye E. Warfield v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and IDWD U.I. Claims Adjudication (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-915
Miscellaneous. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s dismissal of Warfield’s appeal.

 

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