ILNews

Opinions - May 25, 2010

May 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana
49S02-1001-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms trial court and agrees with Court of Appeals. Finds that upon the review of sentence appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7, appellate courts may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the defendant. Disapproves of the contrary views expressed in Eaton, 825 N.E.2d at 1290–91; Pagan, 809 N.E.2d at 926; and Cox, 792 N.E.2d at 904.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration v. Alice V. Meyer, et al.
69S01-0905-CV-233
Civil. Unanimously holds the trial court has no authority to grant a motion for an extension of time to file the record if the motion is filed after the time for filing the record and any previous extensions have expired. Supreme Court is divided as to whether a case may go forward where a full record of proceedings has not been filed. The Court of Appeals decision therefore remains in place and the trial court‘s order remanding this case to FSSA is affirmed.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Susan Kozlowski v. Lake County Plan Commission, Dordija Dordieski, Lana Dordieski, Jon Bruskoski, and Liberty Bruskoski
45A03-0909-CV-430
Civil. Affirms denial of Kozlowski’s motion for summary judgment regarding her claims against the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis and the Lake County Plan Commission. Grants the request of the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis for appellate fees, and remands for a determination of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

Cynthia VanTreese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-PC-1271
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of VanTreese’s petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged her 1981 conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana or hashish.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of H.J.F.; S.S.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1002-JT-68
Juvenile. Affirms probate court’s order involuntarily terminating S.S.W. (mother)’s parental rights to H.J.F.

Timothy Bitter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-0908-CR-382
Criminal. Reverses and remands Bitter’s conviction of and sentence for child molesting as a Class C felony.

Mitchell L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0911-CR-505
Criminal. Affirms King’s conviction by jury of theft as a Class D felony.

Richard Saunders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-0911-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms Saunders’ conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a Class A felony.

Juan Beasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1019
Criminal. Affirms Beasley’s conviction of two counts of robbery as Class B felonies.

Nelisa Glover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms Glover’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

B.G. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Celadon Trucking Services Inc. (NFP)
93A02-0910-EX-1030
Administrative. Affirms decision of the Unemployment Insurance Review Board to affirm the dismissal of B.G.’s appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits for failure to appear for a telephonic, evidentiary hearing.

David Smith v. First Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (NFP)
36A01-0912-CV-574
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of First Farm Mutual Insurance Company on Smith’s claim for breach of insurance contract.

Steven Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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