ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Annette Pittman v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. I.C. 12-23-15-2 did not require the arresting officer, or other law enforcement personnel elsewhere, to perform an evaluation so thorough as to eliminate all other possible causes for each of the symptoms of alcoholic intoxication that Pittman exhibited.

Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
49A02-1112-PL-1078
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for American Family on its claim that the workers’ compensation setoff provision reduced the limits of the liability policy such that its liability under Justice’s policy was zero. After a determination of liability and damages, Justice’s damages award should be reduced by the $25,000 recovery from Wagner and the percentage of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Justice based upon Wagner’s percentage of comparative fault, up to a maximum of $25,000. Remands with instructions.

Covered Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Clark County, Indiana Commission, et al. v. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana
10A01-1101-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Sellersburg that the town’s annexation proceedings should take priority over an incorporation proceeding and the dismissal of remonstrance filed against annexation. The annexation proceeding is first in time and takes priority over the incorporation proceeding because it was validly instituted in June 2008 and Sellersburg’s initial failure to comply with the statutory notice provisions and hold a public hearing did not invalidate the annexation. Holds that the statutory remonstrance waiver requirements were substantially complied with and thus the remonstrance lacks sufficient valid signatures.

Demarco Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Curtis L. Bass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary and a subsequent order revoking community corrections placement and committing Bass to the DOC for six years.

In the Matter of M.W. and K.W.-N., Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services; M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1201-JC-27
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding that children are in need of services.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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????

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  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. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT