ILNews

Opinions June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
In the Matter of Mark R. McKinney
18S00-0905-DI-220
Attorney discipline action. Suspends Mark R. McKinney from the practice of law for 120 days, beginning July 28, for violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.

Today's opinions
Indiana Supreme Court has posted no opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Shaun M. Berry v. State of Indiana
57A03-1011-CR-579
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s imposition of public defender fee and remands for a determination of Shaun Berry’s ability to pay for his legal services and for clarification of $364 in court costs. Holds the court failed to identify statutory authorization for imposing court costs and failed to make statutorily required finding that Berry had the ability to pay public defender fee.

Involuntary Commitment of T.A.
49A02-1011-MH-1243
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment of T.A., holding sufficient evidence exists to support a doctor’s conclusion that T.A. is gravely disabled by mental illness and does not have a realistic plan for self care.

Carlton Wright v. State of Indiana
10A01-1009-CR-517
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement, citing Indiana’s double jeopardy rules, and remands to trial court to vacate conviction. Affirms conviction of robbery and enhanced sentence, due to criminal history and character.

Danny Holloway v. State of Indiana
49A05-1011-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms sentence of Class B felony burglary, stating sentence was not inappropriate in light of Danny Holloway’s criminal background and character.

Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1010-CR-536
Criminal. Reverses Class B felony burglary conviction and determination that Michael Baker was an habitual offender. Remands for entry of judgment of conviction for criminal trespass and sentence on that offense.

Jason R. Chilafoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1011-CR-711
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s assessment of public defender fees and other court costs and fees.

Cary R. Wollenweber v. Hawkins Enterprises, Inc., et al. (NFP)
32A01-1007-PL-318
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Hawkins Enterprises, Inc. doing business as The Mattress Superstore in Wollenweber’s suit alleging violations of the Wage Payment Statute, Wage Claims Statute, and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Damian A. Rosales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1010-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, along with aggregate sentence that includes another felony and one misdemeanor charge.

Paul Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-CR-1041
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Brien E. Franklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1010-CR-732
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Virgil E. Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1003-PC-106
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Travis W. Britt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1258
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of community corrections placement and order that Travis Britt return to the Department of Correction.

Victor Adamson-Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction.

Kasi Ballew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A04-1008-CR-555
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Richard E. Dell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
80A04-1009-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions as of 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