ILNews

Opinions May 25, 2011

May 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Medical Automation Systems Inc., et al.
11-1446
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Modifies the District Court’s judgment of allowing the sale of MAS to Alere to proceed by incorporating the 11 hold-separate conditions listed in the 7th Circuit’s opinion. Alere and MAS can close their transaction if they respect those conditions and the District Court’s requirement that Roche receive its unimpaired period of exclusive use of MAS’ diabetes-product software. The District Court issued an injunction implementing its decision and it expires as soon as the arbitrator renders a decision or at the end of 2012 if the arbitrator hasn’t acted.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Estate of Bradley Kinser, et al. v. Indiana Insurance Company
29A02-1009-PL-1093
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance on its motion for declaratory judgment that it’s not obligated to cover any losses following Bradley Kinser’s accident and death while driving his girlfriend’s car because his policy excluded coverage for a vehicle furnished or available for his regular use. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to the scope and extent that Kinser felt he needed his girlfriend’s permission to drive her car, which affects the determination of whether the car was furnished or available for his regular use.

Clint Cullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1009-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms denial of verified petition for judicial review of alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Paternity of C.C.; M.L. v. J.C. (NFP)
15A01-1009-JP-534
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying physical custody of son in favor of child’s father.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.S.; C.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A05-1010-JT-719
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1010-CR-1439
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony intimidation while drawing or using a deadly weapon and Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child less than 16 years of age.


Joseph Wright v. Aquavalyn Wright (NFP)
45A03-1010-DR-556
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of petition for modification of child support.

Jimmy E. Griffin II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1008-CR-919
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony attempted battery and reverses conviction of Class C felony battery.

Otis Allen Tate, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1009-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Keith McClaran, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (NFP)
55A01-1006-MF-289
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms judgment and grant of foreclosure to MERS as nominee for GMAC Mortgage Corp.

Elliott J. Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Mark Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A04-1011-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Michael Nordman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1005-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony intimidation.

Timothy S. Hanna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1009-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and two counts of Class C misdemeanor furnishing alcohol to a minor.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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