ILNews

Opinions May 26, 2011

May 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry French, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
18A02-1005-PL-489
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court properly denied summary judgment for both parties on the question of whether the insurance policy terms covered the cost of replacing the Frenches’ manufactured home with a stick-built one. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the Frenches’ coverage-by-estoppel claim because there is no dispute that coverage exists; to enter summary judgment for the Frenches on the question of reformation of the policy based on mutual mistake of fact and rescission of the policy based on concealment of material facts by the Frenches. Remands for trial on whether State Farm should be liable for the costs of a stick-built home.

Brian Kendrick v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-300
Criminal. Vacates Kendrick’s two Class C felony feticide convictions on double jeopardy grounds because the evidentiary facts used to establish those convictions established all of the elements of the Class A felony attempted murder conviction. Remands for re-sentencing on the remaining counts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a witness unavailable for trial. There was no prosecutorial misconduct that would entitle Kendrick to a new trial.

Alaska Seaboard Partners Limited Partnership v. Gerald Hood, et al.
32A01-1010-MF-546
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Hendricks County Bank, the McDonalds, and the Boutots and denial of Alaska Seaboard’s cross-motion for summary judgment in Alaska’s mortgage foreclosure action. Alaska’s foreclosure action is barred by the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel. Affirms award of attorney fees to Hendricks County Bank, the McDonalds, and the Boutots.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.A.; R.A. v. IDCS (NFP)
82A05-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Michelle D. Breedlove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1011-CR-755
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Donald E. Bunting v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A05-1009-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C felony possession of at least three grams of methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.M., et al.; M.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
71A05-1010-JT-638
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Daniel R. Penticuff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1101-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and in a manner that endangered a person.

Marlon Snead v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-511
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry and remands with instructions to re-sentence Snead.

Douglas McCorkle v. Alesia McCorkle (NFP)
30A01-1009-DR-438
Domestic relation. Reverses custody order and remands for a re-determination of custody.

Dennis Mysliwy v. Teresa Mysliwy (NFP)
45A03-1009-PO-548
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protective order against Dennis Mysliwy.

Elysia B. Souders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1008-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

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