The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week to cases involving a negligence claim against a grocery store and
subordinated judgment liens.
In The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski, No. 49A02-0807-CV-610, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial
of Kroger's motion for summary judgment in Lu Ann Plonski's negligence claim. Given the Indiana Supreme Court's
holding in Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003), the appellate court determined there
was no need for a judicial re-determination of duty in the instant case. Kroger's duty was sufficiently established by
evidence Plonski, a patron of the store, was assaulted in the store's parking lot as she was leaving. Kroger argued it
didn't have a duty to protect her from a criminal act of a third party who was not a guest or patron of the store; that
even if it had a duty to Plonski, it didn't breach that duty; and that it wasn't the proximate cause of her injuries.
In Gina Johnson v. Robert Johnson, No. 46A04-0810-CV-570, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting
Robert Johnson's motion to have Gina Johnson's judgment lien subordinated. The appellate court ruled the trial court's
order didn't constitute a modification. The line of credit at the bank existed at the time the parties filed the settlement
agreement, so Gina's judgment lien was subordinate to the bank's. The parties also failed to address her lien or its
priority, if any, over the other liens in the settlement agreement.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.