ILNews

Opinions March 28, 2012

March 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indiana
49A04-1107-PC-410
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Because Garrett’s double jeopardy claims are without merit, he was not prejudiced by his trial and direct appeal attorneys’ failure to raise these claims.

Janet Stewart v. Richmond Community Schools
93A02-1108-EX-793
Agency appeal. Affirms final judgment of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana affirming a single hearing member’s determination of permanent partial impairment. The board’s determination that Stewart was not permanently and totally disabled was a final award subject to appellate review. She didn’t seek appellate review, so she waived any claim of error related to the board’s decision.

Teresa Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-823
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

C. Richard Marshall v. Kenneth W. Heider (NFP)
93A02-1106-EX-567
Agency appeal. Reverses order of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana awarding $6,000 in attorney fees to Heider. Remands to the board with instructions.

Stuart Warren Lacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1107-CR-686
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Supreme Court and 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