ILNews

Opinions Oct. 14, 2011

October 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Cedric Tharpe v. State of Indiana
49A04-1101-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder. Tharpe didn’t show the judge who presided over his case was biased or prejudiced, nor did he demonstrate his trial was unfair. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Nathan Allyn Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1012-CR-757
Criminal. Affirms imposition of three-year executed sentence following revocation of probation.

Amber Easton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Matthew Spoonemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms order that Spoonemore pay Indiana Ticket Company $29,700 in restitution. Remands for the trial court to determine whether it wishes to exercise its discretion and enter judgment as a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony for theft.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.Y., and D.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1102-JT-107
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.G.; M.G. and D.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)
82A04-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

T.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-JV-231
Juvenile. Affirms finding of delinquency.

Eugene M. Gray Trust, A-1 Vacuum, Northwest Optical, and Marion County, Indiana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-PL-1329
Civil plenary. Affirms decision regarding the amount of interest due to the trust as part of an eminent domain action.

Gordon Northrup, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1103-PC-272
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian Loveall v. Susan (Loveall) Kelly (NFP)
23A01-1102-DR-47
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of mother’s petition for modification of child support.

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