District Court, S.D. Indiana — appointed by Harry S. Truman
Stone v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993-03-25
The case involved plaintiff Alfred Stone's claims against guaranty agency USA Funds arising from two federal guaranteed student loans he obtained in 1985 and 1986, which entered default after he made no payments and failed to secure a continuing deferment while in law school. USA Funds had paid the lender after the loans became delinquent for 180 days following collection attempts, then pursued repayment via its counterclaim. The court granted summary judgment to USA Funds on Stone's complaint and on the counterclaim, finding that Stone did not dispute the loan amounts, his non-payment, or the agency's compliance with federal due diligence and notice requirements under the Higher Education Act regulations, and that no due process violation occurred.
federal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Unroe v. US BY AND THROUGH DEPT. OF TREASURY
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1990-02-02
This case involved a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor who appealed a bankruptcy court ruling allowing the IRS to file an amended proof of claim after the bar date for 1983 federal income taxes. The IRS had timely filed a claim for 1982 taxes and later sought to amend it to include the 1983 liability, which the debtor had listed in her schedules and plan as a priority claim to be paid in full. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by applying equitable factors to permit the amendment to relate back, given the close relation between the tax years, the debtor's prior notice and intent to pay the 1983 taxes, and the lack of prejudice to other creditors.
taxesprocedurefederal power
Alleghany Corp. v. Eakin
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1989-03-20 · cited 3×
This case concerns Alleghany Corporation's federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Indiana Insurance Holding Company Act after the Indiana Insurance Commissioner denied its application to acquire more than 10% of the stock of an Indiana insurance company as part of a larger acquisition effort. Alleghany sought declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that the Act violated the Commerce, Supremacy, and Due Process Clauses, without first seeking review in Indiana state courts. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under Younger and Burford abstention doctrines, holding that abstention was inappropriate because no state judicial or administrative proceedings were pending, the plaintiff had not violated any law triggering enforcement, and no complex state law issues required resolution in a designated state forum. The court subsequently amended its order to certify the abstention ruling for interlocutory appeal.
business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure
Edwards v. Merchants National Bank (In Re Edwards)
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1988-12-20 · cited 2×
The case involved a Chapter 7 debtor who filed a statement of intent to retain two vehicles subject to a security interest held by Merchants National Bank but later amended it to indicate she would not reaffirm the underlying debt and instead sought to redeem the collateral through continued installment payments. The bankruptcy court denied the bank's motion to compel reaffirmation and ordered the debtor to choose within ten days among surrendering the vehicles, executing a reaffirmation agreement, or redeeming them via a lump-sum payment of their fair market value. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that 11 U.S.C. § 722 permits redemption only by a single payment in full rather than installments, consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent in In re Bell and the need to protect creditors from post-discharge defaults on depreciating collateral. The court reasoned that installment redemption would create monitoring difficulties for the bankruptcy court and leave the secured creditor without adequate remedies after discharge.
propertyprocedure
Browning v. Evans
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1988-12-14 · cited 2×
The case involved a lawsuit by the parents of Troy Browning, a fourteen-year-old student identified as seriously emotionally handicapped under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), challenging school disciplinary actions including suspensions and an attempted expulsion that initially did not follow required procedures for handicapped students. After a series of administrative proceedings under Indiana regulations implementing the EHA, including case conferences and a due process hearing that resulted in orders for a new individualized education program, the parents filed suit in federal court under the EHA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without completing all available administrative appeals. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), holding that the EHA and related claims require exhaustion of administrative remedies before federal court review unless futility or inadequacy is shown, which the plaintiffs did not demonstrate.
civil rightsprocedurefederal power
Jones v. Marion County Small Claims Court
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1988-12-06
This case involved two judgment debtors whose bank accounts, containing exempt federal benefits such as Social Security, were frozen by Indiana banks after small claims courts issued orders under Ind.Code 28-1-20-1.1 to facilitate collection of money judgments. The plaintiffs brought a § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the statute's post-judgment garnishment procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing no notice to the account holder of the freeze, no information about exemption rights, and no prompt hearing opportunity. The court determined that the freezes amounted to state action depriving the plaintiffs of property interests, and concluded that due process mandates immediate notice of the seizure along with notice of exemption rights and a right to a prompt hearing. Because the Indiana statute contained none of these protections, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declared the statute unconstitutional.
civil rightsprocedureproperty