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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT