ILNews

Opinions Sept. 8, 2010

September 8, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Letecia D. Brown v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC and Ford Motor Co.
09-1641
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment dismissing Brown’s FMLA claim following her termination from Ford. The undisputed facts show Brown was absent without leave after failing to give proper FMLA notice for an extension of a previously requested leave period.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gregory Carter v. State of Indiana
32A01-0911-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery resulting in bodily injury as a Class B felony but reverses conviction of theft as a Class D felony due to double jeopardy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when excluding Wal-Mart’s loss-prevention policy and there was no prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire.

Department of Waterworks for the Consolidated City of Indianapolis v. Community School Corp. of Southern Hancock County
93A02-1002-EX-218
Civil. Affirms Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s decision in favor of the school allowing it to install a service pipe in lieu of a water main extension. The IURC properly determined that the water company’s rules do not preclude the school from connecting its new building to an existing water main, and the judges found no other error. Judge Riley dissents.

James Ricketts v. First Horizon Home Loans, et al. (NFP)
49A02-0911-CV-1083
Civil. Affirms denial of motion to correct errors and motion for final judgment.

Robert J. Egierski v. Caterina M. Sergio-Sniadecki (NFP)
71A03-1002-DR-149
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Egierski’s motion to modify the joint legal custody of his son to sole legal custody to father.

Jack M. Estes, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1003-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a Schedule III controlled substance as a Class B felony.

Timothy P. Treacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1031
Criminal. Affirms convictions of operating while intoxicated as a Class D felony and public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.

Steven Griggs v. Steve Querry (NFP)
34A02-1003-SC-287
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Querry for $3,970.31 in damages suffered by Querry.

Michael Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A03-0912-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Lambert C. Genetos, et al. v. Andrew J. Kopko (NFP)
64A05-0912-CV-680
Civil. Reverses judgment entered on the arbitrators’ original award rather than their amended award and remands.

Gerald M. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-376
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove sexually violent predator status.

Joseph M. Sipe v. Laurie L. Sipe (NFP)
32A01-1001-DR-83
Domestic relation. Affirms recalculation of the depreciation of Joseph’s business equipment for purposes of his 2006 income for child support purposes. Affirms valuation and assignment of the cattle and Laurie’s property. Reverses decision to exclude the value of the three horses from the marital estate. Remands for further proceedings.

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