ILNews

Opinions March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C.; S.H. v. State of Indiana
73S01-1209-CR-563
Criminal. Holds that in a situation where, as here, no charges have been filed and no grand jury has been convened, a prosecutor may subpoena witnesses pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-39-1-4. If those witnesses invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination, however, the prosecutor cannot petition the court to grant them use immunity and compel them to testify without first filing charges or convening a grand jury. Reverses court’s denial of parents S.H.’s and S.C.’s motion to correct error and remands for further proceedings.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.P., and J.A. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services

49A02-1208-JT-643
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. Mother J.A.’s due process rights were not violated, and there was sufficient evidence to support the termination.

Howard Osborne and Kimberly Easterday v. Tina R. Berger and Carla Hill, co-personal representatives of the Estate of Elbert H. Osborne, deceased (NFP)
85A04-1209-ES-482
Estate. Affirms order which approved the co-personal representatives’ amended petition for a final account in the estate.

Jami M. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A01-1209-CR-402
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felonies possession of cocaine and maintaining a common nuisance.

Jamarcus Cain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1207-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Daymon Holbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1209-PC-455
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

J.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc. (NFP)

93A02-1205-EX-432
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

William Baxter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1205-PC-248
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Steven Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1208-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Tyrone Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1207-CR-393
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and the habitual offender enhancement.

William J. Caudill v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1206-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury.

Ricky Outlaw v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, Keith Butts, Rick Talley, Bruce Lemon, and Alan Finnan (NFP)

48A02-1210-CT-889
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of negligence complaint Outlaw filed against the Indiana Department of Correction, Commissioner Bruce Lemmon, Superintendent Alan Finnan, and Ricky Talley, in their individual and official capacities.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.K. (Minor Child) and B.K. (Mother) and D.B.K. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1208-JT-367
Juvenile. Affirms termination of 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. 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