ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2010

September 7, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hatter, et al. v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
49A02-0907-CV-659
Civil. Affirms jury trial and verdict in favor of Pierce Manufacturing in the Hatters’ product liability action. Hatter failed to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges and has not shown both of his challenges for cause were improperly denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the giving of jury instructions or in excluding evidence and did not err by denying Hatter’s partial motion for judgment on the evidence.

Rod L. Avery and Marshall K. Avery v. Trina R. Avery
49A05-1004-PL-320
Civil plenary. Affirms default judgment entered against Rod and Marshall Avery in a will contest initiated by Trina Avery. Holds that a will contest is a civil action and that a defendant in a will contest is required to file an answer or otherwise plead to a complaint as provided in the trial rules.

Jeff Koehlinger, et al. v. State Lottery Commission of Indiana
49A02-1003-CT-247
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment to the lottery on its claim that appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Affirms summary judgment for the lottery on the appellants’ tort, Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and quasi-contractual claims. Reverses summary judgment on the contract rescission claim and remands for trial on the issue of detrimental reliance. Judge Riley dissents in part.

Larry Rodts v. Heart City Automotive, Inc.
20A04-1004-CT-249
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Heart City in Rodt’s breach of contract and wage payment claims. There are no genuine issues of material fact, Rodts’ oral contract is unenforceable, and his deferred compensation was not a wage.

Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify self. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Haneef S. Jackson-Bey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-36
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

Umarex Sportwaffen GMBH, et al. v. Toyriffic, LLC d/b/a Hobbytron.com (NFP)
29A05-1001-PL-28
Civil plenary. Affirms order setting aside default on Umarex and other plaintiffs’ claim against Toyriffic for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, conversion, forgery, counterfeiting, and deception.

Theodore Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-0911-CR-674
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Mark Hendrickson, et al. v. Joseph Potetz, et al. (NFP)
87A01-1002-CT-111
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Coinmach Holdings in a wrongful death complaint.

Phillip J. Camp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dewan D. Burnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

John Chupp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-PC-683
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands to the post-conviction court the issue of Chupp’s robbery conviction and directs the court to enter judgment of conviction as a Class C felony and sentence accordingly.

James D. Schregardus v. OH Retail, LL, LLC (NFP)
49A05-1002-PL-156
Civil plenary. Dismisses Schregardus’ appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Declines to award damages under Appellate Rule 66(E).

Salaheddin A. Alfaqeer d/b/a Tobacco Zone v. LOR Corp. (NFP)
49A04-1003-CC-213
Civil collection. Reverses denial of Alfaqeer’s motion to set aside judgment. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.M.; A.M. v. I.D.C.S. and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A04-1001-JT-116
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted 3 transfers and denied transfer to 18 cases for the week ending Sept. 3.
 

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