ILNews

Opinions May 1, 2014

May 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Electric, Inc., Arc Construction Co., Inc., Danco Construction, Inc., Deig Bros. Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation and EVSC Foundation, Inc.
82S01-1307-PL-473
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the antitrust claim. Reverses summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of a public bidding violation. Holds the procedure employed by the school corporation to renovate one of its buildings violated Indiana’s Public Work Statute, but not the Antitrust Act. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the taxpayers who brought the lawsuit as well as a declaration that the transactions by the school corporation violated the Public Work Statute.

Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15S01-1405-CR-309
Criminal. Grants transfer and affirms Brewington’s convictions for intimidating a judge and obstruction of justice related to a doctor, finding the evidence sufficient to support those convictions under I.C. 35-45-2-1(c)(1)-(3) – without implicating constitutional free-speech protections. Affirms Court of Appeals decision to reverse his intimidation convictions involving the doctor and judge’s wife and affirming Brewington’s perjury conviction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert W. Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1308-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

In re the Marriage of: John Lane v. Leisa Lane (NFP)
49A02-1308-DR-698
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of John Lane’s motion for relief from judgment. Lane may file a notice of appeal from the dissolution decree with the clerk of Court of Appeals within 30 days of this opinion being certified.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.J.L.E. (Minor Child), and B.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1311-JT-450
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1309-JT-396
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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