ILNews

Opinions Nov. 4, 2011

November 4, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Liz Anderson, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeff Anderson v.Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
11-1064
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s dismissal of the Andersons’ Indiana law claims for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty and their federal claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act on the grounds that the Andersons did not give Gulf Stream a reasonable opportunity to cure. Holds that the evidence supports their contention that they did give Gulf Stream a reasonable opportunity to cure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Gulf Stream with respect to the Andersons’ claims for fraud and the commission of an “incurable” deceptive act. Remands for further proceedings.  

Friday's opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randall Perkins v. Jayco, Inc.
93A02-1104-EX-361
Miscellaneous. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s affirmation of a single hearing member, who had concluded that Perkins’ employer is not responsible for providing palliative care to Perkins. Holds that the board erred in concluding that a finding that Perkins had reached maximum medical improvement allows for an inference that future treatment is not needed, but held that the error was harmless as a doctor’s report indicated future medical treatments would not be causally related to Perkins’ work injury.

Anna Godby v. Sylvia M. Groce (NFP)
33A04-1012-MI-779
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct error after granting summary judgment for Groce on her action to quiet title.

Johnathon Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A04-1102-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class C infraction operating a vehicle with expired plates.

Gary L. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-248
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to compel an attorney to return documents and unearned fees, holding that the post-conviction court should hold a hearing to determine whether Green’s former attorney has any documents to which Green is entitled and whether the fees retained were unearned.

Dr. Kurt Kessler, M.D. v. Memorial Hospital and Health Care Center, a/k/a Little Company of Mary Hospital of Indiana, Inc., and Dr. Joseph Munning, M.D. (NFP)
51A01-1103-PL-103
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Memorial Hospital and Health Care Center and Dr. Munning on Dr. Kessler’s complaint alleging fraud.

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