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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT