ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2011

September 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christopher A. Andrews v. Sara L. Ivie
55A01-1103-PO-110
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order in favor of Ivie. Andrews engaged in a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of Ivie that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.

Isaiah Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership d/b/a Windsor Estates Health and Rehabilitation Center
34A05-1101-CT-1
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Kindred Nursing Centers in Christmas’ complaint claiming injuries and alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Christmas was invited to enter Windsor’s premises and as to whether Windsor breached its duty of care. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. David G. Bruno, Jr. (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms grant of Bruno’s motion to suppress evidence.

Rodney G. Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1102-CR-48
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

Celina Insurance Company v. Indianapolis Roofing and Sheet, et al. (NFP)

49A02-1103-CT-196
Civil tort. Affirms order granting the cross-motions for summary judgment of Indianapolis Roofing and Sheet Metal Corp., Nazareth Building Services, and CE & M Inc., and denying Celina Insurance Co.’s motion for partial summary judgment in its subrogation action against them.

Shane William Kervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1008-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

David Malone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1226
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

K.T. v. Review Board, and F.C.I. (NFP)

93A02-1101-EX-75
Agency appeal. Reverses decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development affirming the administrative law judge’s conclusion that K.T. left his employment without good cause and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Remands for further proceedings.

Joseph M. Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A04-1103-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

Joseph Dontaus Banks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1010-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class D felony criminal recklessness. Remands with instructions to vacate Banks’ conviction of Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.E.B., K.H.B., Jr., and M.R.B.; C.M.B. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1012-JT-665
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

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