ILNews

Opinions June 18, 2012

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Joseph Agnew v. NCAA
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
11-3066
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit against the NCAA, holding plaintiffs failed to show that the NCAA’s policies limiting athletic scholarships violate the Sherman Act, because the case does not present for discussion the existence of a student athlete labor market.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Don Morris and Randy Coakes v. Brad Crain, Richard Redpath, BioSafe Engineering, LLC, Steve Biesecker, Tyler Johnson, Brandon Ross and Cris Sollars
32A01-1109-PL-414
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court summary judgment in favor of several defendants in a company ownership dispute, holding that the order included a procedure inconsistent with summary judgment.

Shepell Orr v. State of Indiana
45A03-1107-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms two murder convictions imposed by the trial court, ruling the court did not reversibly err in allowing the state to try to impeach a witness with extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement.

Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools v. Gary Grant v. Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools and Stanley Hall
52A04-1107-PL-352
Civil plenary. The trial court erred in denying Peru School Corp.’s motion for judgment on the evidence as it pertains to Grant’s employment as an at-will custodian because there is no substantial evidence of detrimental reliance, which is required to defeat the presumption of at-will employment. But because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to why Grant was fired, the appellate court finds the trial court properly denied the school corporation’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the issue of wrongful termination to go to a jury. Holds Grant is only entitled to nearly $2,500 in damages, not the $175,000 awarded by the jury. Remands for further proceedings.

Sandra Mourfield v. Melvin Mourfield (NFP)
48A05-1111-DR-666
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s grant of father’s petition to modify child support, holding the father’s retirement and reduced income were a result of his intentional criminal misconduct. Remands for the trial court to enter a new order reflecting father’s original child support obligation.

Corey Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-612
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate either Class D felony criminal confinement or Class D felony pointing a firearm, along with the corresponding sentence, holding that the two charges arose from the same offense. Affirms the trial court in all other regards.

Indiana State Police v. Earnest Howard, Jr. (NFP)
45A04-1110-MI-568
Miscellaneous. Holds the trial court’s order overturning the decision of an Administrative Law Judge was in error, as was its denial of Indiana State Police’s motion to dismiss Howard’s petition. Reverses and remands to the trial court to reinstate the ALJ’s decision.

Courtney G. Tressler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A05-1112-CR-699
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.S., N.S., and M.S.; and A.S. and D.F., and J.S. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1111-JT-1123
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and the two fathers of her three children.

Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc. v. 5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-676
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Filmcraft Laboratories, holding that a Continuing Guaranty agreement does not show that Filmcraft would be liable for environmental clean-up costs. Affirms the trial court in other regards.

William Capps, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1108-CR-694
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s decision to deny Capps’ motion for a directed verdict and remands for the court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery and to enter a judgment of conviction for and sentence on the inherently included offense of Class A misdemeanor battery.  

Tina R. Like Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A05-1111-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony neglect of a dependant, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  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. 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

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT