ILNews

Opinions Oct. 19, 2011

October 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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
Alan Massey v. State of Indiana
49A05-1012-PC-808
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Even though the jury was improperly instructed regarding the elements of voluntary manslaughter, Massey wasn’t entitled to the voluntary manslaughter instruction because his girlfriend’s words ending their relationship do not constitute sufficient provocation to induce sudden heat. He also failed to carry his burden to show that the sentencing issue was significant.

Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC v. William Boyer
45A03-1011-CT-598
Civil tort. Affirms award of $300,000 in damages to William Boyer following his complaint for medical malpractice. The trial court properly denied the Weinberger entities’ motion for change of judge; did not abuse its discretion when it failed to strike jurors for cause; the testimony on Weinberger’s breach of his standard of care, the result of Boyer’s EKG, and evidence of Weinberger’s flight and absence from the country were properly admitted; and the jury award was not excessive. Affirms in all other respects.

Carolyn S. Baird v. State of Indiana
82A01-1106-CR-185
Criminal. Affirms convictions of infractions for operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility, failure to register and failure to have the proper license for operating a motorcycle. The evidence was sufficient to support these convictions. Reverses her conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended with a prior conviction because there was insufficient evidence. Remands with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser included offense of driving while suspended, a Class A infraction.

Barker Industrial Park, Inc., Clara Barker and Charles E. Barker v. Ken Cut Lawn Service, Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1104-PL-201
Civil plenary. Reverses attorney fee award to the Bakers and remands for recalculation. Also on remand, the trial court should explain its prejudgment interest calculation and correct its total judgment calculation.

Marquinn McGruder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors carrying a handgun without a license and possession of marijuana.

Zachary Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-1143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Remy Inc. v. Ice Miller LLP and Kathy S. Kiefer (NFP)
49A02-1012-CT-1419
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Ice Miller and Kiefer on Remy’s legal malpractice claim.

Jeffrey J. Whitmer v. Nancy J. Whitmer (NFP)
85A02-1103-DR-283
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the order that set aside substantial sums to Nancy following the sale of property at auction for expenses she claimed to have incurred, as most of the expenses she requested were either untimely raised or were an improper attempt to relitigate the equal property distribution. Remands with instructions.

Danny L. Slaven v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1101-PC-116
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part the denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for resentencing.

Darren B. Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1103-PC-154
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

K.B.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1104-JV-251
Juvenile. Affirms order placing K.B.S. at a private residential facility after the juvenile court found she committed what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion if committed by an adult.

Christopher Davies v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1103-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms order Davies serve the 18-month balance of his suspended sentence following a probation violation.

Kevin Legg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-76
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony criminal confinement.

James Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-PC-152
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Sergio Esqueda v. Alfredo and Maria Ponce (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-476
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Valentin Jaramillo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1103-PC-125
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Rumero Ziebell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1012-PC-694
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part the denial of Ziebell’s petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for the post-conviction court to order the habitual offender enhancement in the murder case to be served concurrent with the habitual offender enhancement in the drug case.

Ayron Saylors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1102-PC-99
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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