Conviction splits COA in determining actions of a ‘reasonable person’
In affirming the conviction of a man who violated a no-contact order, the Indiana Court of Appeals split over what a “reasonable person” would have done in similar circumstances.
In affirming the conviction of a man who violated a no-contact order, the Indiana Court of Appeals split over what a “reasonable person” would have done in similar circumstances.
The sale of Noble County lake and farm property at auction is valid even though some siblings in a family limited liability corporation objected because reserve prices hadn’t been met, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in affirming the trial court.
A jury that found a Kokomo motorist 70 percent at fault when his vehicle sitting at an intersection was rear-ended misread the law, as did a judge who instructed jurors, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
A real estate investor who argued that he should not be held personally liable because the loan documents were ambiguous was reminded by the Indiana Court of Appeals that “a failure to read does not equate with an ambiguity….”
Read who’s recently been suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court, received a public reprimand or resigned.
Now that former high-profile personal-injury attorney William Conour has pleaded guilty to accusations that he defrauded dozens of clients of more than $4.5 million, his victims hope for some measure of restitution. At least a fraction of the loss will be covered by the law school to which Conour gave $450,000.
The courts are limiting relatives’ rights while the Indiana General Assembly seeks to expand them.
Indiana statute makes clear the state’s position on same-sex marriage, but it also leaves murky the rights of Hoosier couples who, despite the law, are legally married.
A task force has made three recommendations to the Indiana Supreme Court on how to encourage lawyers to perform more services for indigent Hoosiers.
Hundreds rushed to a clerk’s office July 1 on a mistaken belief that was the only day they could petition to have their criminal records expunged.
The Indiana Commission on Courts will meet Thursday to hear a request for an additional magistrate in Vanderburgh Circuit Court and to review the state’s bail surety system.
A business owner will have to serve his sentence after the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected his argument that his criminal convictions and financial penalties imposed for failing to pay taxes violated double jeopardy principles.
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a public school construction project built through a foundation should have been subject to public bidding requirements.
The Hendricks Superior Court is welcoming two new judges to the bench. Attorneys Tammy Somers and Michael “Joe” Manning have been appointed as magistrates for the Superior Court. Somers accepted the position effective July 1, 2013. Manning accepted the position effective Aug. 5, 2013.
Now that former high-profile personal-injury attorney William Conour has pleaded guilty to accusations that he defrauded dozens of clients of more than $4.5 million, his victims hope for some measure of restitution. At least a fraction of the loss will be covered by the law school to which Conour gave $450,000.
A partnership between two Indianapolis nonprofits will provide for the first time ongoing legal services to homeless veterans working to become self-sufficient.
A man’s federal lawsuit against two Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers and the city will go forward after a federal judge rejected one officer’s interlocutory appeal.
A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled Wednesday that Apple Inc. colluded with major U.S. publishers to artificially raise the retail prices of e-books.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an Indiana man’s convictions and 360-month sentence for drug-related offenses, rejecting his claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated and the starting time of his offenses was incorrectly determined by the District Court.
Because the underlying substantive claims brought against an Indianapolis man regarding his treatment of his dog are quasi-criminal, he is entitled to a jury trial under the Indiana Constitution, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.