ILNews

Opinions June 11, 2014

June 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange
49S02-1311-PL-733
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Erie Insurance on the issue of whether its automobile policy provided uninsured motorists coverage for automobile property damaged caused by a hit-and-run driver where no personal injury resulted. Because personal injury did not result in the accident, the Erie policy does not provide uninsured motorist coverage with respect to the property damage sustained by the Robinsons’ vehicle.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
49A04-1212-PO-649
Protective order. On rehearing, reverses 28-year extension of protective order because it is unreasonable. Because A.N. agreed to an extension, remands for the trial court to determine a reasonable extension of K.G.’s protective order in accordance with the instructions in this opinion.

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne
49A04-1309-PL-451
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc. and Brian Payne on the Millers’ lawsuit alleging, among other things, defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. Summary judgment was proper on the tort claims, civil conspiracy claim and loss of consortium claim.

State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk
79A04-1308-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms grant of Vanderkolk’s suppression motion. Caselaw supports the conclusion that Vanderkolk’s roommate did not completely waive his Fourth Amendment rights before beginning home detention. A search of their home led to contraband in Vanderkolk’s room. Judge Bailey concurs in result. Judge Kirsch dissents without opinion.

Ajayi Folajuwoni v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor voyeurism, Class B misdemeanor battery and Class B felony attempted deviate conduct.

In Re the Paternity of C.B.: F.M. v. N.B. (NFP)
71A04-1309-JP-492
Juvenile. Affirms grant of father’s petition to award him primary custody of child and the order mother pay $5,000 of father’s attorney fees.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.R. and K.R., Minor Children, and B.W., Mother, B.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al (NFP)
45A05-1307-JT-335
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

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