ILNews

Opinions June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson
36S05-1206-DR-371
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court decision which prohibited the father from exercising any parenting time with his child and provided no means by which he could earn parenting time. Declares an agreement to forego parenting time in exchange for relief from child support void against public policy. The trial court’s prohibition against parenting time is not supported by the record.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Michael Alexander v. United States of America
12-2190
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses Alexander’s malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The complaint for malicious prosecution sets forth enough plausible detail to provide adequate notice to the defendants and survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Concludes the IIED claim is timely and adequately states a claim.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Hamilton Heights School Corp. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Sherri K. Stepp, and The Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1210-EX-795
Agency action. Reverses decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development finding Hamilton Heights School Corp. liable for unemployment benefits relating to the dismissal of Sherri Stepp. The notice of the in-person hearing given to the school corporation was inadequate in light of the procedural history of this matter together with the confusing and seemingly inconsistent information contained in the documentation issued by the Department of Workforce Development. Remands with instructions. Judge Riley dissents.

Sterlen Shane Keller v. State of Indiana
59A01-1206-CR-271
Criminal. Grants state’s petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects. Regardless of what Sterlen Keller did with Robert Collier’s checks after he took them – whether he put them in his garage or cashed them – he committed the offenses when he took the checks from Collier’s mailbox and from that point on he committed a single continuing act of theft.

Rachel Van Alstine v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
93A02-1301-EX-27
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: K.W., Minor Child, and D.F., Father v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1210-JT-523
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights to K.W.

Patrick Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1210-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Clarenda Love v. Bruce Love (NFP)
32A05-1207-DR-373
Domestic relation. Reverses property distribution order following the dissolution of the Loves’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to determine the distribution in accordance with the presumption of an equal division of marital property.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

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