ILNews

Opinions Oct. 23, 2012

October 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
11-2464
Civil. Reverses in part and affirms in part, affirming the district court injunction against I.C. 5-22-17-5.5(b) that bars state or federal funding for “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” The circuit court held that Medicaid grants individual rights under federal civil rights protections, but reversed the district court with regard to federal block grant funds, holding that no such actionable protection exists.

Indiana Supreme Court
National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS, Inc., NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
49S02-1203-CT-137
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Ernst & Young, holding that collateral estoppel precludes the plaintiffs’ deception claim because the veracity of the defendant’s documents at issue had been decided during arbitration proceedings.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC
49A05-1109-PL-486
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of DMY and denial of summary judgment in favor of State Auto, holding that language in insurance policies regarding pollutants was ambiguous. The court also remanded to the trial court to review settlement agreements between Indiana Farmers and DMY and to consider valid contribution of credit issues.

David Mathews v. State of Indiana
01A02-1203-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Mathews adjudication as a habitual offender. The court held that the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant Mathews’ request for a mistrial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
69A01-1203-CR-110
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions sentence for child molestation. The court found the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant did not warrant the 60-year aggregate term of imprisonment assessed by the trial court. Instead, it reversed and remanded with instructions to revise the sentencing order to run the two 30-year sentences concurrently for an aggregate 30-year term of imprisonment. Judge Crone dissented, arguing for a partially consecutive sentence.

David A. Young v. Gladys C. Young (NFP)
34A04-1204-DR-222
Divorce. Reverses and remands a dissolution of marriage order with instructions to equally divide the marital estate not subject to a prenuptial agreement and reverses the order awarding incapacity maintenance with instructions to determine whether wife has ability to support herself absent an award.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline Tuesday.









 

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