ILNews

Opinions Feb. 2, 2012

February 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Emergency Services Billing Corp. Inc., individually (and as agent for) agent of Westville Volunteer Fire Department v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al.
11-2381
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division at Lafayette, Judge John E. DeGuilio.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of ESBC’s suit seeking individuals involved in car accidents are responsible for the clean-up costs of hazardous substances released after accidents. A motor vehicle owned for personal use is a “consumer product in consumer use” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and thus owners/operators of personal motor vehicles are exempt from CERCLA’s response-cost provisions.

Bryan J. Brown v. Elizabeth Bowman, et al.
11-2164
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of Brown’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Because his claims of religious bias require a federal District Court to review the judicial process followed by the Indiana Supreme Court in deciding the merits of Brown’s bar admission application, his claims are “inextricably intertwined” and fall squarely under Rooker-Feldman’s jurisdictional bar. Declines to address whether the District Court was correct in ruling in the alternative that the defendants were immune from suit.

United States of America v. Erik D. Zahursky

11-2054
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms Zahursky’s 210-month sentence imposed by the District Court on remand. Zahursky has forfeited his right to challenge the application of the pseudo-count enhancement under Section 2G1.3(d) on appeal because he failed to raise the issue in his first appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Allen Rowe v. William K. Wilson (NFP)
46A04-1109-SC-476
Small claim. Reverses dismissal of Rowe’s claim for failure to pay the filing fee and remands with instructions to impose a filing fee of $0.65.

Eric C. Roach v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1108-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Alex R. Voils, Jr., Vicki L. Voils v. Everhome Mortgage Co. (NFP)
06A01-1101-MF-66
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of the Voilses’ request to set aside the sheriff’s sale.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.C., a minor child, and her Father, D.B.; D.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1105-JT-286
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT