ILNews

Opinions Oct. 18, 2012

October 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

John A. Dugan v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-50
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The court erred when it denied Dugan’s claim that Mills applied retroactively to his habitual offender enhancement. Remands for the court to vacate that enhancement.

Daniel Nanos v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-238
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion for jail time credit and remands so that Nanos is granted an additional six days of credit against all of his sentences.

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. v. Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. f/k/a LIberty Express Scripts, Inc., Paul Elmer, and Veterinary Inventory Solutions, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1110-CC-980
Civil collection. Affirms order limiting Elmer’s personal liability for certain purchases by Veterinary Inventory Solutions Inc. to $3,000.

http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/october/10181203cjb.pdf

Gohmann Asphalt & Construction, Inc. v. Five Star Painting, Inc. (NFP)
10A04-1206-CC-324
Civil collection. Reverses order reinstating a complaint filed by Five Star Painting Inc.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.B., Minor Child, and Her Father, S.M.B.; S.M.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1204-JT-147
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Blake Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Bryan A.Ogle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1202-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms Ogle was properly sentenced for both the Class B felony robbery conviction and habitual offender enhancement but that the court should have ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

Logan Wininiger, Richard Roberts, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, New NGC, Inc. d/b/a National Gypsum Services Company (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-225
Agency action. Affirms review board’s finding that claimants are ineligible for unemployment compensation because they were unemployed as a result of a labor dispute.

Robert Peacher v. Dennis Davis (NFP)
48A02-1110-SC-1027
Small claim. Affirms order dismissing Peacher’s action against Davis.

State of Indiana v. Shaun L. Steele (NFP)
20A03-1111-PC-502
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Steele’s PCR petition on the issue of double enhancement, but affirms the post-conviction court in all other respects. Remands for further proceedings.
.

 

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