ILNews

Opinions Nov. 1, 2012

November 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Stephen W. Robertson, Indiana Comm. of Insurance, as Admin. of Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund and The Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. B.O., A Minor, Lisa A. Ort and Kevin C. Ort
49S04-1111-CT-671
Civil tort. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to B.O. and his parents because Indiana Code 34-18-15-3(5) precludes the Patient Compensation Fund from disputing the existence or cause of B.O.’s claimed injury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Leslie Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, Veolia Water North America Operating Service, LLC, and The City of Indianapolis, Dept. of Waterworks
49A02-1112-CC-1097
Civil collection. Affirms trial court dismissal of Bridges’ class action filed after her water was turned off for nonpayment, finding Bridges failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available at the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission. She had to seek those remedies before seeking judicial relief. Concludes that I.C. 8-1-2-68 through -70 grant the IURC exclusive jurisdiction over Bridges’ claim regardless of whether it is treated as a challenge to and request for reimbursement of the reconnect fee or as a challenge to the allegedly improper act of terminating her residential water service in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the tariff.

Joshua Shipley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A05-1204-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement with a deadly weapon.

Jeffrey S. Heironimus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1204-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence of witness identifications made after a warrantless entry into an accomplice’s residence.

Angela R. Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A04-1201-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanors possession of paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement.

Brian S. Fleming v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1202-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Stephen L. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony corrupt business influence.

Bryan Jann v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and C&B Custom Modular, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1185
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by review board that Jann, by failing to appear, had presented no evidence to support claim for unemployment benefits.

Darrius Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1202-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Kenneth Hawkins v. Debra Hawkins (NFP)
49A02-1203-DR-206
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of assets and declines to award Debra Hawkins attorney fees.

David J. Bogolia and Nikki Schafer v. John Danielson, M.D. (NFP)
64A04-1201-CC-42
Civil collection. Affirms denial of Bogolia’s and Schafer’s motion for partial summary judgment and their motion to strike Dr. Danielson’s response to that motion.
 

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