The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Victor
George v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Inc.
11-3291
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Vacates grant of Junior Achievement’s motion for summary judgment on the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act claim and dismissal of George’s state-law claims without prejudice. The District Court must decide whether there
is some other ground on which the case may be resolved short of trial or whether a trial on causation is necessary.
Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Cody B. Honeycutt v. State of Indiana
92A04-1203-CR-149
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to dismiss charges on grounds that they were barred by the Successive Prosecution Statute.
Because the four charges were supported by probable cause and based on a series of acts so connected that they constituted
parts of a single scheme or plan, they should have been charged in a single prosecution.
Napoleon Gracia, Sr. v. State of Indiana
34A04-1112-CR-667
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony disarming of a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor battery, and
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. While the filing of charges in Howard Superior Court I was an error, Gracia
did not object to the filing and was unable to show fundamental error. He is also not entitled to the jury instruction on
excessive use of force by police and his sentence is appropriate.
William LaShun Caples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms denial of Caples’ motion to set aside jury verdict convicting him of three counts of Class A felony
child molesting.
Charles Blakemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.
Najee S. Blackman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1203-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.
Estate of Lewis G. Mark, Deceased, and Evelyn J. Mark v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
71A03-1203-MF-143
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for 1st Source as to its foreclosure complaint.
In the Matter of Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H., C.H., & A.H.; and D.M. v. The Indiana
Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
54A05-1202-JT-56
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Z.B., G.B., K.B., & S.B.; and T.S. v.
Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
64A03-1201-JT-31
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.














Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud
I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills
No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution