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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT