ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2011

November 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
93S02-1102-EX-90
Miscellaneous. Reverses decision by Worker’s Compensation Board dismissing as untimely Indiana Spine Group’s application for adjustment of claim. Holds that the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the question of the limitation period applicable to a medical provider’s claim seeking payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s employee. Holds that the limitation period contained in the general statute of limitation controls. Remands for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

D.C. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1102-JV-116
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order imposing a determinate commitment of two years in the Department of Correction, to be followed by an indeterminate commitment, holding that the determinate and indeterminate commitment statutes are unambiguously mutually exclusive. Remands to the court to determine which type of commitment is appropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hoffman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1104-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to dismiss, holding that he is not entitled to relief on double jeopardy grounds because the record fails to prove that being demoted by the United States Army was related to his arrest, and the Army action was not equivalent to prosecution by the state.

Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis
49A02-1107-CT-595
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s determination that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis had no legal responsibility to continue paying for Jane Doe’s therapy costs, as the Archdiocese had been paying for counseling voluntarily.

Lindell Patterson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because an officer was able to discern during a pat-down search that Patterson had marijuana in his pocket, the evidence was admissible under the “plain feel” doctrine.

Shawn Brent v. State of Indiana
34A04-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because police officers did not find marijuana on Brent or see him discard it, no proof exists of actual possession. Reverses Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance based on the state’s concession that it did not prove that claim.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A01-1104-CR-162
Criminal. Reverses 65-year sentence for murder, holding that the court abused its discretion when it failed to consider Caraway’s guilty plea as a mitigator. Remands to the court for resentencing consistent with opinion.  

Bren Simon, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Melvin Simon; and Bren Simon, as Trustee of the Melvin Simon Family Enterprises Trust Agreement v. Deborah J. Simon, Simon Property Group, Inc., et al.
29A05-1012-ES-760
Estate, supervised. Dismisses appeal, holding that because Bren Simon was dismissed as personal representative, she does not have authority to pursue an appeal in a representative capacity.

Cordell M. Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1101-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and trial court’s order that Wells serve two years of his previously suspended sentence.

Rissie M. Green v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Covenant Care Indiana (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-421
Miscellaneous. Affirms decision by Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss Green’s appeal.

Leroy G. Meahl v. Donna J. Meahl (NFP)
36A01-1104-DR-188
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order dissolving marriage.

In Re the Marriage of: Mary K. (Butler) Weir v. Steven J. Butler (NFP)
02A05-1105-DR-287
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of Steven Butler, holding the court properly awarded child support credit for college expense payments.

Ralph Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

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. 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