ILNews

Opinions Oct. 15, 2010

October 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Southlake Community Mental Health Center, Inc., et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point, Indiana, et al.
45A03-1002-MI-81
Miscellaneous. Reverses determination that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point correctly concluded that Southlake and Watertower South’s proposed use of a certain parcel was inappropriate for the parcel’s zoning classification. The original appeal of the Crown Point Plan Commission’s decision by Feather Rock Professional Office Park was untimely. Remands with instructions to grant Southlake and Watertower’s certiorari petition.

Ritzert Co., Inc., et al. v. United Fidelity Bank, Tyme Properties, LLC, et al.
82A04-1001-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for United Fidelity Bank on the contractors’ claim for unjust enrichment. United, which made no request, express or implied, to the contractors for their services did not otherwise owe a duty to the contractors.  

Travis Cordell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1005-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Travis D. Rutherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1005-PC-278
Criminal. Affirms guilty plea to, conviction of, and sentence for Class D felony voyeurism.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., et al.; C.Y. v. Montgomery County D.C.S. (NFP)
54A01-1005-JT-229
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Mental Health Proceedings of D.J. (NFP)
29A04-1003-MH-205
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing D.J. to a mental-health facility as an inpatient.

Christopher Rudolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms 25-year sentence for aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and carrying a handgun without a license under one cause number; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, dealing in marijuana, and resisting law enforcement under another cause number.

Crystal G. Huesman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1002-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms determination that Huesman violated her probation.

Dametrick M. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

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