« Indiana Law - Hammond mayor denies local paper access to police records | Main | Environment - Recent stories »

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Indiana Decisions - 7th Circuit posts three today

Fogel, Richard L. v. Gordon & Glickson (ND Ill.)

Before POSNER, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The cross-appeals in this diversity
suit present issues of fraud (under the common law of
Illinois) and arbitrability and a request by the defendants for
sanctions for the filing of a frivolous suit, along with
jurisdictional issues. The district court dismissed the suit for
failure to state a claim, enjoined arbitration, but denied
sanctions. The only sources of facts are the complaint and
contracts appended to it. * * * The notice of
appeal was not premature. But to challenge the amended
judgment, and thus the injunction, Fogel would have had to
file a new notice of appeal, and he failed to do so. So the
appeal from the injunction must be DISMISSED for want of
appellate jurisdiction, and so we do not address the issue of
res judicata. The dismissal of the fraud suit and the denial
of sanctions are AFFIRMED.
Mei, Wei Cong v. Ashcroft, John D. (On Petitions for Review of Orders
of the Board of Immigration Appeals)
Before POSNER, KANNE, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge. Wei Cong Mei has petitioned us for
review of two orders by the Board of Immigration Appeals,
one ordering him removed from this country and the other,
which need not be discussed separately, denying his motion
to reconsider the first order. The principal issue we consider
is the meaning of “crimes involving moral turpitude” in
immigration law and generally.

Simtion, Raducu v. Ashcroft, John (Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals)

Before POSNER, ROVNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. After weaving a procedural web
that dates back to 1992, Raducu Simtion now seeks review
of an August 2002 decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”). But we lack jurisdiction to review that
decision because Simtion did not timely file his petition for
review. Instead, he filed with the BIA a “motion to reopen,”
which the BIA denied in April 2003. Simtion’s May 2003
petition for review is timely to challenge only the BIA’s refusal
to reopen. To the extent Simtion is seeking untimely
review of the August 2002 decision, we dismiss his petition,
and to the extent Simtion is seeking review of his motion to
reopen, we deny the petition.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 29, 2004 01:19 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions