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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT