ILNews

Opinions Aug. 8, 2014

August 8, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The follow 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Estate of Edmund M. Carman, deceased, v. Daniel B. Tinkes, et al.
13-3846
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of defendants. Finds even if Tinkes violated Indiana traffic laws which prohibit passing on the right and making unsafe lane changes by pulling into a left turn lane, he did not cause Carman to crash into the rear of his truck. Rules the estate did not prove its second claim that the bumper on Tinkes’ truck caused Carman’s death.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Victor Keeylen v. State of Indiana
49A05-1308-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence collected in a home search. Even though the warrantless installation of GPS tracking devices on Keeylen’s vehicles in a narcotics dealing investigation was improper, Keeylen failed to prove police engaged in deliberate falsehood or acted with reckless disregard for the truth by omitting information about the GPS devices on a probable cause affidavit authorizing a home search that led to drug charges.

Geico Insurance Company, as subrogee of Ralph Heitkamp v. Dianna Graham
49A02-1310-CT-898
Civil tort. Affirms order setting aside summary judgment in favor of Geico on grounds that its claim in Marion Superior Court is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it is derivative of a judgment in St. Joseph County in favor of Graham.  

Jason Keith Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1311-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms sentence and conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Samuel Curts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1312-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Kimberly Kraemer v. Haulers Insurance Co., Inc., as subrogee of Linda Shanabarger (NFP)
27A05-1311-CT-544
Civil tort. Affirms denial of motion to correct error and request to set aside summary judgment in favor of Haulers Insurance.
 
R.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1401-JV-24
Juvenile. Affirms delinquent adjudication for committing what would constitute Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult.

In re; the Paternity of BKS, CSS v. RSK (NFP)
45A03-1311-JP-463
Juvenile. Affirms trial court order awarding father R.S.K. custody of daughter B.K.S.

Patrick Palmer Jr. v. Chastity Carse (NFP)
37A04-1312-DR-637
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Palmer’s petition to modify custody.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT