ILNews

Opinions March 8, 2011

March 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana
82A01-1005-CR-223
Criminal. Reverses Gray’s conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. She contended there was insufficient evidence that she constructively possessed the marijuana. Judge Cale Bradford dissents, writing that Gray was in close proximity to the marijuana and that it was in plain view, as officers had testified at trial.

Anderson Property Management LLC v. H. Anthony Miller, Jr. LLC.
43A03-1003-PL-239
Civil. Reverses trial court’s holding that the mediated agreement is enforceable and the trial court’s order that the parties execute and record the amendment to negative easement and perform their respective obligations of the mediated agreement. Also vacates trial court’s order that each party shall pay its own attorneys fees and instructs the trial court to consider this issue when it enters final judgment in this proceeding. Remands with instructions.

Mark Lesh v. Richard Chandler and Marilyn Chandler
44A05-1003-PL-197
Civil. Affirms trial court’s conclusion Lesh’s actions amounted to a private nuisance. Reverses trial court’s decision to extend the protective order dated April 26, 2006, because the proceedings on which that order was based were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on Sept. 28, 2006. As the protective order was not in effect after Sept. 28, 2006, the finding that Lesh violated its terms is reversed. Remands for redaction of the language in Judgment Items C and G regarding the protective order. Also affirms the permanent injunction entered against Lesh, the contempt finding against Lesh, and the damages awarded in favor of the Chandlers.

Anna Quimby v. Becovic Management Group, Inc.
49A05-0912-CV-747
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Quimby’s wage claim against Becovic Management Group. She had assigned that claim to the Department of Labor, where it was resolved. Claimants who proceed under the Wage Claim statute submit their claim to the DOL rather than filing a complaint with the trial court. Immediately above her signature, the form filed with the DOL stated, “Pursuant to IC 22-2-9-5, I hereby assign to the Commissioner of Labor all my rights, title and interest in and to the above certified claim for processing in accordance with the provisions of IC 22-2-9-1, et seq.”

In the Matter of J.C., Alleged to be CHINS; K.M. and J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1007-JC-878
Juvenile. Affirms CHINS determination and remands for corrections to juvenile court’s orders that improperly reflect that J.C. was removed from the home during the underlying proceedings.

Robert D. Baxton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery as a Class B felony.

Joseph M. Ferry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Glen Leroy Rusher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

A.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1007-JV-450
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for receiving stolen property, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult; and criminal trespass, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Town of Highland and Highland Sanitary District v. Lee Lieberman, et al. (NFP)
45A05-1003-CT-178
Civil. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment by Town of Highland and the Highland Sanitary District, and remands for trial.

Anthony Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-810
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Vincent Demus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A03-1008-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his body.

Mark Kennedy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms convictions of attempted murder, a Class A felony; and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Also affirms adjudication that found him to be a habitual offender.

L.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-327
Civil. Affirms decision of the review board to deny L.H.’s unemployment benefits.

Devon Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1007-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement by fleeing.

Willie J. Herman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1006-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana.

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