ILNews

Opinions May 2, 2014

May 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday

Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright and Protect Our Woods Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, Administrator
13-2142
Civil. Affirms District Court rulings of summary judgment in favor of EPA and denial of motion for U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard Young to disqualify himself based on prior rulings. Young correctly found plaintiffs’ motions were moot because a Bloomington PCB cleanup is ongoing, because plaintiffs are not prevailing parties or parties to the original consent decree, and as such they also are not entitled to attorney fees. Young’s decision not to disqualify himself did not deny plaintiffs due process.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Christine Anderson v. Indiana Insurance Company, a member of Liberty Mutual Group
64A03-1309-CT-359
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance, holding the court erred in ruling that Anderson could not recover from Indiana Insurance for injuries sustained in a traffic accident because she had received payment from other sources in excess of the limits of her underinsured motorist policy limit. Remands for proceedings.

Marc M. Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1309-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms one-year executed sentence for conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday.  7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions Friday by IL deadline Friday.

 

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