ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2013

February 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted Friday after IL deadline:
Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana
20S03-1206-CR-308
Criminal/support. Reverses Court of Appeals and affirms trial court ruling that the custodial parent of children who have been emancipated as adults is a victim in cases of non-payment of child support.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Jose Maldonado-Morales v. State of Indiana
20A05-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of domestic battery, ruling that a jury instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent was not an abuse of discretion and that the state was not required to prove that Maldonado-Morales knowingly or intentionally struck his ex-wife in the presence of their child.  

Steven Bethel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1203-PC-139
Post-conviction. Affirms finding that Bethel waived claims forming the bases of his request for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.M. and M.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1208-JT-678
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Juan Beamon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-571
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge and ordering the trial court to enter a judgment on Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

James Eskridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-PC-629
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from revocation of parole.

Tamara Downie, formerly Tamara Reed v. Jason Reed (NFP)

20A03-1208-DR-344
Domestic relations. Affirms order modifying child support.

Darrell L. Weightman and Donna Weightman v. Brian A. Nellis (NFP)

65A01-1207-CT-309
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on jury verdict in favor of Nellis on the Weightmans’ negligence claim.

Michael T. Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1207-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms sentence of conviction of battery as a Class A felony.

Shawn J. Fuller v. Carrie R. Fuller (NFP)
12A04-1205-DR-251
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s contempt finding and judgment in favor of Shawn Fuller.

Martel D. Cross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1207-CR-369
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.W., M.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

19A01-1208-JT-393
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert Stokes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

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