ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2010

November 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
American Bank v. City of Menasha, et al.
10-1963
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Reverses judgment granting a stay requested by Menasha to give American Bank certain records available pursuant to Wisconsin’s Public Records Law. The bank, a plaintiff in a class-action suit charging the city violated federal securities law, requested the documents after the suit was filed. The stay is not a stay of a discovery order and can only be an injunction; only a stay of discovery is authorized by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

Louquetta O’Connor-Spinner v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
09-4083
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. The administrative law judge’s hypothetical did not supply the vocational expert with information adequate to determine whether O’Connor-Spinner could perform jobs in the national economy. The ALJ also did not address potentially important evidence that she has difficulty taking instructions and responding appropriately to supervisors. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donnie Salyer v. State of Indiana
75A05-1003-CR-164
Criminal. Affirms denial of Salyer’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. The incorrect address information on the warrant did not invalidate it because the executing officer knew the precise location of Salyer’s home, prepared the search warrant and accompanying affidavit, and executed the search warrant.

Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-839
Criminal. Affirms dismissal of motion for re-trial under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Based upon Whatley’s motion and the dates of his attached documents, he didn’t demonstrate that the alleged newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered by due diligence in time for him to move for a motion to correct error under Rule 59.

S.D. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-JV-442
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication for what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The juvenile court erred by admitting S.D.’s confession because he had not been given meaningful consultation with his guardian as required by Indiana’s juvenile waiver of rights statute.

John D. Hemmings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1003-CR-162
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

John V. Guthrie, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

James M. Sampson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony residential entry.

Rafael A. DeJesus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-95
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael Nuckols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-202
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Travis W. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1006-CR-398
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of validity of guilty plea to Class D felony stalking and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Bruce D. Seal v. Lori L. Seal (NFP)
48A04-0912-DR-750
Domestic relation. Affirms awarding attorney’s fees to Lori but reverses awarding a pension plan solely to Lori. Remands for further proceedings.

Paternity of F.B.; P.B. v. J.M. (NFP)
55A04-1006-JP-360
Juvenile. Reverses finding that P.B. was in contempt and remands with instructions to vacate its original order in this regard. Affirms modified support order reducing his support obligation to $54 per week. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing a $400 a week income to the father based on his previous income of $470 a week.

Cody Lewellen and Cody Dallas v. Brandon Cessna (NFP)
80A05-1005-CT-330
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Lewellen’s Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside default judgment in a personal injury action filed by Cessna.

Eric Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-244
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

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