ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2012

November 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following Indiana opinion was issued after IL deadline Wednesday:
U.S. v. Christopher L. Laraneta
2:10-cr-00013-RL-PRC-1
Criminal. Affirms 30-year prison sentence for conviction of seven violations of federal child pornography laws, and affirms monetary damages for victims, but orders that one victim’s judgment be reduced by the amount she has received in restitution from other cases. The appellate court also vacated the restitution order, requiring first a determination of whether Laraneta uploaded victim images.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., d/b/a Zurich; Travelers Ideminity Co. of America
02A03-1204-CT-170
Civil tort/insurance. Affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Empire, holding that Indiana law rather than Georgia law should apply in the case, but determining that Empire’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limit is still only $75,000, as the trial court ruled.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.P. & Au.P.; M.H. & T.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
77A01-1202-JT-59
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights, holding that the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well being.

Derek Clanton v. State of Indiana
49A02-1203-CR-198
Criminal. Reverses the trial court denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered by an off-duty officer during a stop and frisk. The court found although the officer was off duty, he was acting in accordance with his training and therefore was not entitled to continue the search after he determined the suspect was not carrying a weapon.   

Kurt E. Hinkle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1204-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Jeffery Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms conviction of four counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.T. (Minor Child), and B.J.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A05-1107-JT-710
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.



 

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