ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2012

October 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Edward Jeroski, doing business as USA Cleaning Service and Building Maintenance v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and U.S. Secretary of Labor
11-3687
Agency review. Denies USA Cleaning’s petition to review the order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, which affirmed the denial of an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The meaning of “prevailing party” under the act does not apply to USA Cleaning, which was the subject of an order by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration that was later dropped.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

William A. Boyd and Janice Ann Boyd v. State of Indiana
28A01-1203-PL-108
Civil plenary. Affirms the state’s taking of the Boyds’ property for use in constructing Interstate-69 in southwest Indiana. None of the Boyds’ claims are reviewable in eminent domain proceedings.

David E. Lyons v. State of Indiana
76A03-1112-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony child molesting. The requirements of Evidence Rule 702 were satisfied and the admission of Dr. Judith Williams’ testimony did not constitute error or a fundamental error.

Andrew Machi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1203-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Crabtree’s probation for Class C felony child molesting was revoked.

Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1110-CR-496
Criminal. Reduces Bryant’s conviction of Class C felony battery to a Class B misdemeanor and remands for resentencing, which will have no effect on his aggregate 93-year sentence. Affirms remaining convictions of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony intimidation.

Shellie P. App v. William App, Jr. (NFP)
67A01-1203-DR-99
Domestic relation. Finds trial court erred by entering a post-secondary educational expense order in the absence of a worksheet or its own findings and conclusions and by failing to specify which parent should claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Affirms in all other respects. Remands with instructions.

John Tompkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary and status as a habitual offender.
 

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