ILNews

Opinions May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Dora Brown, Ben Kindle, and Sonjia Graf v. Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-0912-TA-83
Tax. Rules the DLGF was not required to perform a “needs analysis” set forth in I.C. 36-6-6-14(d) before it approved the Gregg Township Board of Morgan County’s loan for a new fire truck under I.C. 36-8-13. The DLGF’s final determination is supported by the evidence. Remands for the DLGF to address whether its final determination violates the Indiana Constitution.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
David Streeter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A04-1110-PC-640
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re the Matter of L.P., Alleged Child In Need of Services, S.P. and M.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Miami County CASA Program (NFP)
52A02-1212-JC-1028
Juvenile. Affirms determination that L.P. is a child in need of services.

In Re The Matter of: D.H. and D.H., Children in Need of Services; D.H. (Father) v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1210-JC-827
Juvenile. Affirms determination that D.L.H. and D.H. are children in need of services.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.B. (Minor Child) and A.B. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1208-JT-341
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Robert L. Murray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1205-PC-274
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kevin Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-761
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Samuel Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1211-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted deviate conduct.

Dennis Powell & Barbara Powell v. Porter Hospital, LLC d/b/a Porter Hospital (NFP)
64A03-1210-CT-413
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of the Powells’ complaint against Porter Hospital and remands for further proceedings.

Angel L. Diaz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-1212-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony pointing a firearm, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Louis Moreira v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1208-CR-351
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony burglary.

D.P. and G.P. v. J.H. and T.H. (NFP)
71A05-1210-MI-618
Miscellaneous. Remands with instructions to conduct a new hearing on the foster parents’ motion to tax fees and costs. Declines to address the grandparents’ arguments related to the adoption of J.P. by the foster parents and denies the foster parents’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Richard B.E. Spoon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A04-1205-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Jacob Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1211-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting and the calculation of pre-sentencing credit time.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT