ILNews

Opinions Oct. 26, 2010

October 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allstate Insurance Company v. Timothy Clancy, et al.
45A03-0910-CV-498
Civil. Reverses trial court’s order granting a motion to compel the production of documents. In its interlocutory appeal, Allstate Insurance Company raised the following issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling production of documents subject to the attorney-client privilege on the ground that Allstate has implicitly raised an advice of counsel defense, thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege.

Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana
38A02-1003-CR-272
Criminal. Affirms Nathan Brock’s conviction of operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life, a Class C felony. Brock argued his convictions violated double jeopardy because the trial court granted the state’s request for a mistrial at the close of the first trial in the absence of a manifest necessity to do so, and then permitted the state to retry Brock, resulting in his conviction. Indiana Court of Appeals found the mistrial and subsequent retrial did not violate double jeopardy.

Troy Burge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1006-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for credit time and time served.

Russell Timmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-0910-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of confinement, a Class C felony.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.O.V.; C.L.V. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1003-JT-445
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

O.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-408
Civil. Affirms Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s denial of request for unemployment benefits.

The Law Offices of Wayne Greeson, PC, and Shammah Investments, LLC v. Steuben County Auditor (NFP)
76A03-1003-MI-122
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of Steuben County Auditor regarding attorney fees in tax sales.

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