ILNews

Opinions May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
State ex rel. Gregory F. Zoeller v. Aisin USA Manufacturing, Inc.
36S01-1009-CV-469
Civil. Holds the attorney general’s attempt to recover a “tax refund” from Aisin in Jackson Superior Court may proceed. It does not arise under the tax laws because the “refund” was the result of accounting and clerical errors with in the Department of Revenue that were wholly unrelated to any interpretation or application of tax law. Justices Rucker and Dickson dissent.

Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana
82S05-1007-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. There is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers, so the trial court didn’t err in failing to give Barnes’ proffered jury instruction on this right, and the evidence was sufficient to support Barnes’ convictions. Justices Rucker and Dickson dissent.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Vincent and Antimo Scialdone v. An Island, LLC
49A05-1011-PL-777
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of An Island LLC’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and order the case transferred to Perry County. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Perry County was the only preferred venue for the case.

Erodney Davis v. State of Indiana
45A05-1008-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did err by permitting a police detective to testify as a skilled witness, but it was a harmless error. The trial court did not err by excluding evidence of a witness’s prior drug-related convictions or by giving an additional instruction to the jury that it had inadvertently omitted from the final jury instructions.

Jameson Malbrough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-958
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony child molesting, and one count each of Class C felony child molesting, Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification, and Class D felony intimidation.

James Spann v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor obstructing traffic.

Rodney Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1108
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.A., et al.; A.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
45A03-1005-JT-271
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lloyd Conn v. State of Indiana
24A01-1009-CR-508
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder. The evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Robert A. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1006-PC-674
Post conviction. Affirms denial of request for additional educational credit time.

Thomas Huffine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1098
Criminal. Affirms sentence following revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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