ILNews

Supreme Court grants writ of mandamus

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court justices unanimously voted to grant a permanent writ of mandamus and prohibition in a case out of Howard Superior Court.

Relators Jeffrey Scott Bousum and Regina Lee Bousum alleged Judge Stephen M. Jessup of Howard Superior Court 2 failed to rule on motions for summary judgment within the Trial Rule 53.1 time limits after a hearing on those motions. They also allege trial court clerk Mona L. Myers failed in her duty to withdraw the case from the trial court upon the filing of the relators' praecipe and to transmit the case to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge.

In the order from Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed Judge Jessup to vacate any orders or judgment issued after the filing of the praecipe on June 1, 2009, and to stop exercising jurisdiction over the case except for administrative tasks needed to execute the writ. Clerk Myers is to give written notice to the judge and the Supreme Court that the submission of the case has been withdrawn.

The judge must also file a written report pursuant to Trial Rules 53.1(F) and 53.2(F) once the clerk complies with Trial Rule 53.1(E)(2) and the high court issues an order appointing a special judge. The writ is effective immediately.

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