ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jimmie E. Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana
29S02-1108-CR-511
Criminal. Adopts Court of Appeals opinion in full, which affirmed the refusal by the trial court to give Jones’ tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses to the murder charge. The evidence didn’t support a reckless homicide instruction and the charging information for the murder count foreclosed an involuntary manslaughter instruction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Paternity of C.S.: M.R. (Mother) v. R.S. (Father)
53A01-1108-JP-381
Juvenile. Affirms order granting a petition for modification of custody filed by father. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that C.S.’s physical and mental/academic maturation constituted a substantial change warranting modification of custody. The trial court did not misinterpret Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 in the process of drawing conclusions from its findings, nor did it err in relying on the updated custody evaluation.

Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin
18A05-1105-DR-301
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands as to the trial court’s division of Robert Hardin’s pension, including the cost to Carlotta Hardin of the survivor’s benefit. Affirms as to all other issues. The trial court used an incorrect coverture fraction and erred in dividing the pension.

Charles L. Eckard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1108-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery.

Juan Emerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1102-PC-95
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kelly Scott Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1111-PC-651
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw petition for post-conviction relief and denial of that petition.

T.N.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1105-JV-263
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be sexual battery if committed by an adult.

Mark Wiley v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-593
Agency appeal. The full board of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana erred in denying Wiley’s claim for the reimbursement of costs associated with his wheelchair because the undisputed evidence reveals his impairment is reduced by having a working motorized wheelchair and the parties’ agreement did not waive this claim. Further, based on a plain reading of the agreement, the board did not err in awarding Wiley reimbursement for the cost of repairing the chair lift added to his pick-up truck. Remands to the full board to enter an amended order consistent with this opinion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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