ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2011

November 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Green River Motel Management of Dale, LLC, et al. v. State of Indiana
74A05-1104-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Green River’s motion for summary judgment. A state action that merely alters the flow of traffic or causes access by a more circuitous route can’t give rise to a taking as a matter of law. Affirms on all other respects.

Geneva-Roth Capital, Inc., et al. v. Akeala Edwards
49A02-1101-PL-43
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of LoanPoint USA’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edwards and a purported class of people who got small, short-term payday loans from LoanPoint USA. Having concluded that the National Arbitration Forum as the arbitral forum was integral to the arbitration agreement, and given that the NAF is no longer available to conduct consumer arbitrations, the arbitration provision is null and void on grounds of impossibility.

Daniel Stevenson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1103-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class B felony and a Class C felony.

M.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-JV-329
Juvenile. Affirms dispositional order that found M.J. to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation.

Roy M. Strong and Independent Associates, Inc. v. Bertha McKinster, individually and as Attorney in fact for Robert McKinster (NFP)
49A02-1010-PL-1167
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict awarding Bertha McKinster $643,200 in damages on her suit for conversion, securities fraud, racketeering, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and negligence.

Willie Andrew Alsanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1104-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after lifetime suspension of driving privileges.

Lewis R. Ross, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1103-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1103-JV-166
Juvenile. Affirms true finding that D.B. committed what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Joseph D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1105-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Michael K. Boone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1104-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Gerald D. James v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A05-1104-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Justin B. Troxell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1104-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation after Troxell was charged with attempted rape and conspiracy to commit rape.

Elvis A. Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1106-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT