ILNews

Opinions Oct. 2, 2012

October 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Moise Joseph v. State of Indiana
82A05-1108-CR-387
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, Class B felony attempted armed robbery and Class B felony criminal confinement. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting Joseph’s statements to the police detective.

Willie Bigsbee v. State of Indiana
34A02-1201-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Finds trial court did not err in overruling Batson objections, and there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens
54A01-1201-CT-31
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Kappa Psi defendants in Yost’s suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages after he was injured by his fraternity brothers. The defendants did not breach any duty owed to Yost and finds Yost was not a victim of hazing under the state’s anti-hazing statute or of other foreseeable criminal conduct. Judge Vaidik concurs in part and dissents in part.

Raymond C. Tisdale v. Christine M. (Tisdale) Bolick (NFP)
49A02-1202-DR-138
Domestic relation. Reverses order in which the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Raymond Tisdale’s petition to modify child support. Remands with instructions to hold a hearing.

Douglas Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1201-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for felony murder.

Lora L. Karr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1112-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms denial of pretrial motion to suppress.

Scott J. Welton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1202-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Garrett Andrew Plumlee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Herbert Preasha v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1204-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to have certain items seized at the time of Preasha’s arrest returned to him. Remands with instructions.

Tracy A. Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1203-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Arthur J. Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1109-PC-542
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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