ILNews

Opinions Oct. 29, 2010

October 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.
Indiana Tax Court
Dale J. Scopelite and James T. Sheehan v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance (NFP)
49T10-0812-TA-71
Tax. Affirms the Department of Local Government Finance’s final determination approving the City of Hammond’s budget and tax levy for the 2008 tax year.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Taele and Sarah Taele v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
06A01-1004-CT-259
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Taeles aren’t entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits under their State Farm policy because they themselves were neither directly impacted nor directly physically injured by the accident that killed their daughter. Judge Crone dissents.

J.M. v. D.A.
43A03-1003-DR-183
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify child support. The trial court did not err by imputing potential earnings in father’s weekly gross income for purposes of calculating his support obligation after he became a full-time student. Reverses finding father in contempt because the trial court did not find that father has the financial ability to comply. Judge Bradford concurs in part, dissents in part.

Sean H. Chiszar v. State of Indiana
91A04-1004-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony voyeurism, three counts of Class D felony possession of child pornography, Class A misdemeanors possession of paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and battery. Chiszar didn’t show the voyeurism statute is unconstitutionally vague; the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence deputies obtained after Chiszar had consented to the search of his garage; and there was sufficient evidence to support the search warrant.

Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1001-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms denial of Denzell’s motion to dismiss criminal charges of Class A misdeneaor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Denzell does not satisfy the test in Davis and Habibzadah to show a due process violation because there remains the possibility that he will be restored to competency, even though he cannot be sentenced to an additional term if convicted.  

Y.G. v. Review Board
93A02-1004-EX-538
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits. There is no indication Y.G. explained his limitations or sought an alternative placement until such time as his disability subsided.

Rebecca Reed-Harrison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-740
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss criminal charge. Remands with instructions.

State of Indiana v. Lynn Wilson (NFP)
49A02-1003-PC-644
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Wilson’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Ivette Haylett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Charles Huntley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license which was enhanced to a Class C felony due to a prior conviction.

Joel Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1002-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five Class B felonies.

Michael Clay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-56
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury as a Class A felony and illegal consumption of alcohol by a minor

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.K.; S.K. v. IDCS (NFP)
76A03-1004-JT-247
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Tracy D. Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1004-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms decision to order the execution of Price’s suspended sentence after he violated probation terms.

Peters Broadcast Engineering v. WROI-FM (NFP)
25A03-1005-SC-260
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of the radio station in a dispute over alleged unpaid balance plus interest of invoices for repair and installation services performed for the station.

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