ILNews

Opinions March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Dennis Jamison
10-1515
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Jamison’s conviction of possessing a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. sections 5861(d) and 5845(a). During his trial, the district court permitted the government to elicit testimony from Jamison’s wife on cross-examination regarding Jamison’s aggressiveness. Jamison appeals his conviction, arguing that the question and his wife’s response were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, unduly cumulative, and lacked foundation. The government claims that the evidence demonstrated Mrs. Jamison’s bias and motive to lie.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clinton County, et al. v. Jacqueline R. Clements, et al.
54A01-1008-PL-407
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Clements on her claim for immunity under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3. Concludes the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Clements’ motion for reimbursement of attorney fees under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-5(e). Remands for a calculation of attorney fees owed to Clements.

Kimberly Devlin v. Daniel L. Peyton
49A02-1008-DR-902
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s ruling regarding Peyton’s (father) parenting time, which was not disputed by Devlin (mother). Vacates dissolution court’s findings and conclusions regarding adoption proceedings that were pending in adoption court. Mother appealed the dissolution court’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction to address the adoption question and that she failed to establish that father’s consent to the adoption was not required.

Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver
29A02-1004-DR-429
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s emancipation date of Sept. 23, 2009, for daughter born in May 1990, and concludes she was emancipated no earlier than Dec. 10, 2009. Remands for trial court to recalculate the amount of child support father has overpaid, and to apportion the payment of uninsured medical expenses incurred by two of the parties’ daughters in 2009, in accordance with this opinion. Also remands for entry of a post-secondary education expense order as to father. Finally, reverses award to father of attorney fees and his current wife’s travel expenses.

Ryan Michael Bodnar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of Class A felony dealing in narcotics.

The 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