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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT