ILNews

Opinions Oct. 27, 2010

October 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
James L. Parkey v. Jason E. Sample
09-3966
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge William C. Lee
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of Indiana State Trooper Jason Sample’s motion for summary judgment, which found James Parkey, who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, had not brought forth any evidence to demonstrate a lack of probable cause. Parkey claimed Sample had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by searching his home and seizing his property without probable cause. Suspecting Parkey had a marijuana grow operation, Sample did two trash pulls near Parkey’s residence where Sample found marijuana cigarettes and stems from marijuana plants, evidence he presented to a Lake County Superior magistrate, who issued a search warrant for Parkey’s home.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maurice Porter v. State of Indiana
20A03-0912-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms one conviction of nonsupport of a dependent child as a Class C felony, and reduced the second conviction of nonsupport of a dependent child to a Class D felony for which the sentence shall be a term of 1.5 years, to be served consecutive to the sentence for the Class C felony. Remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction and a sentencing order in conformance with this opinion.

Kent Hizer and Elizabeth Hizer v. James Holt and Rebecca Holt
71A03-1002-PL-127
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Holts on the Hizers’ claims for fraud and breach of contract arising from the Hizers’ purchase of the Holts’ home. Concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Holts made fraudulent misrepresentations on the Sales Disclosure Form required by statute.

LaPorte Community School Corporation v. Maria Rosales
46A04-1001-CT-4
Civil. Concludes trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting deposition testimony from an expert regarding school safety and school emergency plans. Also finds the trial court properly denied the school’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to negligence and properly granted Rosales’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to contributory negligence. However, also concludes the jury was not properly instructed regarding negligence, and the erroneous instruction was a reversible error, and therefore the Court of Appeals remands.

Joel Moses v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas L. Blair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1003-CR-201
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension and speeding.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.M.B.; R.M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1004-JT-181
Juvenile. Affirms termination of R.M.W.’s parental rights to her son, D.B.

Floyd E. Whitlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-657
Criminal. Finding Whitlock’s motion is not ripe for adjudication because he is still serving his sentence, affirms trial court’s order that Whitlock may have to register for the Indiana Sex Offender Registry as a condition of parole.

James J. Pierce, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1002-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Ronald Trent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1003-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 35-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, a Class A felony, following a guilty plea.

David M. Holmquist v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1001-IF-2
Criminal. Affirms bench judgment for speeding, a Class C infraction.

Angel Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute.

Gene Payton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1003-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life, a Class C felony.

Kwiatkowski Land Management LLC v. Torrenga Engineering Inc., et al. (NFP)
45A04-1001-MF-18
Civil. Concludes trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Torrenga Engineering and in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of third-party plaintiffs Richard and Joan Handtke. Finds the agreed judgment is clearly erroneous to the extent that it relates to these erroneous orders. However, the Court of Appeals affirms the agreed judgment to the extent that it relates to the lien against the Chesterfield Estates Property held by third-party plaintiff K & S Engineering.

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. 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