ILNews

Federal judge gives green light to trial

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled a lawsuit can proceed to trial over a "very fast, and valuable, race car."

The Not for Publication opinion issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder is Reginald D. "Don" Whittington Jr. v. Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation a.k.a. Hall of Fame Museum, No. 1:06-cv-0333-JDT-TAB.

Judge Tinder denied motions for summary judgment and determined that a trial is the only likely way to resolve this dispute involving the ownership of a famous Porsche 935 used in the French car race that is considered the Indianapolis 500 of endurance racing.

In 1979, the driver racing team of brother Don and Bill Whittington and German driver Klaus Ludwig won the 24 Hours of Le Mans that is raced in France each year on a circuit that combines racetrack and closed public roads. This litigation focuses on the ownership of the Whittingtons' 935 K-3 racecar, which both parties disagree whether it was donated or loaned to the IMS Museum of History in the early 1980s.

After giving the car to the IMS, Don Whittington raced for several years before dissolving the brothers' racing company, spending time in prison for tax conspiracy, and eventually asking in August 2004 for the Porsche to be returned so he could show it at a vintage car event in Florida. The IMS Foundation - which had maintained, insured for $375,000, and periodically displayed the car for more than 20 years - declined to return the Porsche it classified as a donation. This suit was filed in February 2006.

In Judge Tinder's ruling, he notes that neither party can point to written records establishing the nature of the ownership transfer - "the history of the Porsche 935 K-3 is little more than a story of handshake deals," the judge wrote.

As a result, he denied Whittington's motion for summary judgment on claims of conversion and replevin, and also denied the Foundation's motions for summary judgment on statute of limitations and laches grounds.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT