ILNews

Opinions May 25, 2012

May 25, 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

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana
03A01-1108-CR-369
Criminal. Dismisses Haste’s appeal of his conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine because the order from which he appeals isn’t a final judgment.

Mark Gasser v. Lesa B. Downing, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and Property Owners Insurance Company
19A05-1108-PL-419
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Gasser’s motion for summary judgment, and affirms summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, on Gasser’s suit for underinsured motorist coverage. Gasser’s friend’s car, in which Gasser was riding, was not a “temporary substitute” for purposes of the Auto Owners policy because it was being used as a favor or friendly accommodation, not to fulfill a legal or contractual obligation Gasser had.

Cody Dallas v. Brandon Cessna
80A02-1110-CT-925
Civil tort. Affirms finding that Dallas is jointly and severally liable to Cessna for damages following intentional acts of battery. The Comparative Fault Act clearly stipulates that Cessna may recover 100 percent of his damages for the intentional tort from Dallas, as Dallas pleaded guilty after a prosecution based on the same evidence used in the civil proceedings.
 
In Re the Estate of Ruby Shuler Blankenbaker Botkins, Deceased; Mark Allen Shuler and David Lee Shuler, co-personal representatives v. Estate of George Botkins and Larry Botkins, personal rep.
22A05-1109-ES-481
Estate supervised. Dismisses appeal by Mark and David Shuler of the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside a family settlement agreement relating to the administration of Ruby Botkins’ estate because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Anthony Dorelle-Moore v. State of Indiana
45A04-1109-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Dorelle-Moore claimed the trial court abused its discretion relating to the prosecutor’s communications with a potential witness. Any suppression of a witness’s testimony was no more than a harmless error.

Tyjuan J. Dixon v. State of Indiana
45A03-1110-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and two counts of Class A felony attempted murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the state to introduce extrinsic evidence in the form of testimony from a police detective as impeachment of another prosecution witness.

Anthony McCoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1110-PC-511
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keith M. Butler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1105-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts each of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and one count of Class D felony child solicitation.

William Pargo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms grant of state’s motion to amend charges against Pargo.

Clovis Smith v. Alexandra Ryan (NFP)
07A01-1111-PO-518
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protection order and determination that Smith is “Brady disqualified” from buying a firearm.

Victoria Thomas v. National Education Association-South Bend and South Bend School Corporation (NFP)
71A03-1107-MI-383
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Thomas’ motion to stay and affirmation of the decision by the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board that concluded the National Education Association – South Bend did not violate its duty to fairly represent Thomas in her grievance against her employer, South Bend Community School Corp.

Lucas E. Holland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1107-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder and Class B felony armed robbery.

Lorinda Harper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1110-CR-981
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Darrell Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-939
Criminal. Affirms order that Lawrence serve his entire suspended sentence following a probation violation.

Shane J. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms in part and remands for a more specific statement of the terms of Johnson’s probation revocation consistent with the opinion.

Jeremy Kyle Everhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1105-CR-253
Criminal. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Paul Esparza v. Denis Lynch (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/may/05251204msm.pdf
75A04-1104-SC-184
Small claim. Affirms $1,000 judgment in favor of Lynch for destruction of property.
 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT