ILNews

Opinions June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinions were issued after IL deadline Monday.
Jacob Fuller v.State of Indiana

48S02-1406-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 85 years in prison. Fuller was 15 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

Martez Brown v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 80 years in prison. Brown was 16 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

June 3
Indiana Supreme Court

Virginia E. Alldredge and Julia A. Luker, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Venita Hargis v. The Good Samaritan Home, Inc.
82S01-1305-CT-363
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment, holding that a wrongful death claim against Good Samaritan may proceed. Holds that the Fraudulent Concealment Statute may apply to the Wrongful Death Act’s two-year filing period. Remands for proceedings.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a/k/a Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. United Equipment Leasing, LLC
30A01-1311-CC-507
Collections. Affirms trial court grant of United Equipment’s motion for relief from a May 31, 2012, order. The trial court ruling is sustainable under the trial court’s inherent power to reconsider, vacate or modify any previous order so long as the case has not proceeded to final judgment.

5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc., Eric J. Spiklemire, Portrait America, Inc., A.C. Demaree, Inc., Russ Dellen, Inc., Clean Car, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1306-CT-311
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Filmcraft, Spicklemire, et al. on Keystone’s property tax claim.

Michael G. Stoner v. Amy M. Stoner (McIntire) (NFP)
38A02-1310-DR-879
Domestic. Affirms denial of father’s petition for permanent change of custody and modification of support.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT