ILNews

Opinions Nov. 26, 2012

November 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W. and C.W. (Minor Children); J.W. (Mother) B.W. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
33A04-1206-JT-289
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Paternity of G.J.C. and C.E.C.; J.T. v. N.R. and R.C. (NFP)
45A05-1205-JP-250
Juvenile. Reverses grant of mother’s motion for judgment on the evidence regarding paternity and remands for further proceedings.

Kellylee Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1204-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Kendrick Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

N.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1205-JV-245
Juvenile. Affirms order juvenile N.L. register as a sex offender.

Todd Shireman v. Todd Hensley and Jerry McKay d/b/a H&M Cattle Company (NFP)
29A04-1201-PL-40
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Shireman’s request for attorney fees under the general recovery statute and the grant of attorney fees to Shireman as a sanction for discovery violations.

Terry Wade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1203-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless entry into Wade’s home.

Jonathan E. Perdew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1112-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms Perdew’s convictions and aggregate eight-year sentence executed and eight years suspended for two counts of Class C felony child molesting, bur reverses a restitution order. Remands with instructions to modify the order to reflect the amount of restitution supported by the evidence.

Jack Marshall v. Beth Marshall (NFP)
27A05-1201-DR-52
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of Jack Marshall’s child support obligation and the treatment of extracurricular and extraordinary educational expenses, as well as the award of attorney fees to Beth Marshall.

J.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-360
Juvenile. Reverses true finding of delinquency for resisting law enforcement.

Albert Van Meter and Krissy Van Meter v. United States Steel Corporation (NFP)
45A03-1204-CT-156
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to U.S. Steel regarding its duty to Albert Van Meter under premises liability principles. Reverses in part the grant of summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether U.S. Steel assumed a liability to Van Meter and regarding breach and proximate cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Oluwasanmi Animashaun v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.
 

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