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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT