ILNews

Opinions Sept. 25, 2012

September 25, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Hall v. State of Indiana
13A04-1111-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate 24-year sentence for convictions of dealing in methamphetamine, possession of precursors, operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension, and resisting law enforcement. The court held that a search of the vehicle that Hall fled after leading police on a chase did not implicate the Fourth Amendment and that the sentence was not inappropriate given Hall’s dangerous conduct and long record of driving and drug convictions.

Ray Evans v. Eric L. Thomas
73A04-1112-PO-670
Protective order. Affirms trial court issuance of a protective order against Evans, concluding that the seriousness of the allegations against him warranted swift judicial action, that Evans was not denied an opportunity to retain counsel, and that denial of his request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion.

R.W. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-JV-1187
Juvenile. Reverses a true finding of attempted burglary, a Class B felony, on grounds that the admission of a videotaped confession constituted a fundamental error. Also remanded with instructions for a true finding of criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.

Holly Horst (Greczek) v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of Class C felony fraud on a financial institution.

Scott Wayne Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1112-CR-608
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/september/09251209pdm.pdf

Cary L. Patrick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1109-PC-413
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on four counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class B felony arson.

Daniel E. Stuckman, Sr. and Daniel E. Stuckman, Jr. v. Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals and the Estate of Gary Stuckman (NFP)
43A03-1202-MI-69
Miscellaneous/zoning. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of the defendants.

Wesley Hood, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1201-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in home detention.

Matt B. Helmen, M.D. v. Mary and Ronald McDaniel, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel, Deceased, and Phillip Lam, M.D. (NFP)
49A02-1204-CT-327
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for change of venue.

M.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-JV-102
Juvenile. Affirms finding that M.M. committed what would have been Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana if committed by an adult.


 

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