ILNews

Opinions Oct. 7, 2013

October 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions, Oct. 7, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals

The Estate of Richard A. Mayer, and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco
37A03-1207-PL-323
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Reverses denial of summary judgment to the Estate and Spangler Jennings on claims for negligent supervision and/or retention, tortious interference with a business relationship, and tortious interference with a contract, and directs that summary judgment be entered in the estate’s and Spangler Jennings’s favor on those claims. Reverses denial of summary judgment to Spangler Jennings on the defamation claim and directs that summary judgment be entered in its favor on that claim. Reverses the denial of summary judgment to the estate regarding Lax and Lasco’s seeking punitive damages against it and direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the estate on that claim. Affirms the granting of summary judgment in the estate’s favor on the defamation and malicious prosecution claims. Affirms denial of summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim against Spangler Jennings and the denial of summary judgment on the abuse of process claim to both the estate and Spangler Jennings. Affirms the denial of summary judgment in favor of Spangler Jennings on punitive damages.

Dorian Gray Jackson v. State of Indiana

20A05-1210-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms convictions for possession of a narcotic with intent to deliver as a Class A felony, two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug as Class B felonies and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. Finds intervening circumstances –
rather than the GPS device police had attached to the suspect’s car without a warrant – led to the traffic stop and discovery of the illegal drugs. Concludes the circumstances were sufficient to remove any taint from any police illegality.

Daniel B. Buffkin v. Glacier Group
79A02-1302-PL-141
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of temporary injunction to enforce terms of an employment non-competition clause, holding that the activities prohibited and the geographic restraints Glacier Group sought to place on terminated contractor Daniel Buffkin were unreasonable, rendering that part of the agreement unenforceable. Remands for further proceedings.

Marie Castner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1302-CR-44
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.I. v. Midtown CMHC (NFP)
49A05-1304-MH-146
Mental Health. Affirms order for temporary commitment.

Michael Morrisey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Morrisey’s community corrections placement.
 
Robert Walke and Karen Walke v. Kitley Law Office, P.C., (NFP)
49A02-1304-CT-291
Civil Tort. Affirms granting summary judgment in favor of Kitley.

Gordon B. Dempsey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
49A02-1303-PL-218
Civil Plenary. Affirms Chase’s motion for summary judgment. Reverses the award of $141,545.21 in attorney’s fees and costs, and remands for further proceedings to ensure the court’s award does not improperly overlap with the award of attorney’s fees in federal court.  

In Re: The Paternity of J.K., A.K. v. T.L. (NFP)
02A03-1301-JP-12
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms denial of Father’s (A.K.) petition to modify custody of his daughter (J.K.).  

In Re The Paternity of I.B., K.H. v. I.B. b/n/f L.B. (NFP)
34A02-1305-JP-401
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms order that, among other things, directed father (K.H.) to pay child support and $1,200 of the mother’s (L.B.) attorney fees.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court did not release opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not release Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  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. 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

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT