ILNews

Opinions Nov. 2, 2011

November 2, 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
Monte Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1009-CR-1040
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of receiving a ballot, entered as Class A misdemeanors.

Wilkie Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-278
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Ronald J. Lampitok v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Reverses conviction of and sentence for carrying a handgun without a license. Finds harmless errors in admitting Exhibit 44 and allowing the state to amend its charging information for Lampitok’s habitual offender charge.

Steven D. Hadley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A05-1106-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Class B felony criminal confinement.

Janet Greenwell v. Gregory J. Loomis, M.D. and Matthew B. Kern, M.D. (NFP)
82A04-1003-CT-173
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of doctors Gregory Loomis and Matthew Kern on Greenwell’s medical malpractice complaint.

Stan Rekewig LLC, Stanley Rekewig, Susan K. Rekewig, et al. v. Dickason Truck & Equipment, Inc., n/k/a FSD Enterprises, Inc., Frank W. Dickason Trust Number One, et al. (NFP)
90A02-1012-CC-1371
Civil collection. Affirms judgment of foreclosure of real estate in favor of Dickason Truck Equipment.

Indiana Tax Court
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Denies the assessor’s motion in its entirety to dismiss Idris’ and Kamenova’s tax appeal. Idris’ reliance on the clerk as the means to effect service did not run afoul of statutory requirements for initiating an original tax appeal under Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-5 because that statute recites no preference for any particular method of service. While Idris’ method of service admittedly did not comply with Tax Court Rule 16(C), it was consistent with the spirit and purpose of the rule.
 

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