ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2012

May 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Finance Center Federal Credit Union v. Ronnie D. Brand, Debora J. Brand and GMAC Mortgage, LLC
49A02-1111-MF-1089
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms partial summary judgment in favor of GMAC regarding the priority of the GMAC Mortgage and Finance Center Federal Credit Union mortgages. Equity should not allow the Finance Center to gain an unexpectedly elevated priority because of any negligence of GMAC that did not harm Finance Center.

Samantha Adams v. State of Indiana
49A05-1107-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss. The trial court did not deny Adams due process in denying her motions to dismiss her dealing and possession of marijuana charges. Finds the definition of marijuana is not vague and Indiana Code 35-48-4-11 is not unconstitutional.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., C.M., and K.M.; M.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1109-JT-541
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1000
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the five-year suspended portion of Hunter’s sentence.

Christopher Master v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1108-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies rape and criminal deviate conduct.

Darryl Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class C felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery.

David West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1111-CR-1013
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

Bret Beiler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1109-CR-839
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

In Re the Paternity of B.C., M.L. v. D.N., Jr. (NFP)
05A02-1110-JP-964
Juvenile. Reverses decision to set aside paternity affidavit executed by D.C. and N.E. and the May 26, 2009, paternity order.

John W. Mitchell v. American Acceptance Co., LLC, as Assignee of Chase Bank USA, N.A. (NFP)
02A03-1108-CC-366
Civil collection. Affirms grant of summary judgment to American Acceptance Co. on its complaint for collection of credit card debt.

Joshua M. Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1109-CR-493
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies stalking and burglary, Class D felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy, battery and resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

 

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