ILNews

Opinions Sept. 10, 2013

September 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John Scott
12-2962
Criminal. Affirms U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence gathered from a search warrant issued after a driveway conversation involving drug deals was captured without the knowledge of either party, after a dealer took a confidential informant’s vehicle to meet his supplier, John Scott. The panel held that sufficient evidence aside from the recorded conversation supported the issuance of the warrant.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerome Binkley v. State of Indiana
84A05-1208-PC-441
Post conviction. Reverses and remands summary denial of a petition for post-conviction relief from a conviction of murder, holding that Binkley pleaded sufficient facts to raise a material issue of possible merit regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Kelvin Fuller v. State of Indiana
45A03-1212-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal denial of a motion to dismiss charges under Criminal Rule 4(C). The court held that Kelvin Fuller, extradited to Indiana after convictions in Wyoming, failed to meet his burden of proving he was denied a speedy trial because he could not show that Lake County prosecutors or courts were aware of his incarceration in Indiana before he filed a petition seeking to dismiss charges.

Myron Jay Rickman v. Sheila Rena Rickman
27A02-1211-DR-950
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Myron Rickman’s petition for modification of visitation and denial of motion to correct error, holding that his incarceration on child molestation convictions alone is insufficient to bar phone or mail contact with his son. Remands to the trial court for findings as to whether the petition was denied pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2, or whether the court considered the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

H.M. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1304-CR-157
Criminal. Affirms denial of H.M.’s four petitions to restrict disclosure of his arrest records. Finds, under the state’s former expungement law (the petitions and denial were issued several months before Indiana’s new expungement law took effect on July 1, 2013), H.M. is not eligible for expungement because, although he was arrested, he was never charged with a crime. Rules the old statute requires an information or indictment to be filed before an individual can be said to have been charged.

Tim L. Godby v. James Basinger, et al., (NFP)
77A05-1201-PL-3
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of James Basinger, et al.

Ronald Andrew Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1301-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms denial of Manley’s petition to remove his designation as a sexually violent predator from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry.

Reco Terrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1302-CR-78
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Century Surety Company v. The Ugly Monkey, LLC and Camburad, LLC, Amber Pagel, Dale Ueber a/k/a Dale Uebersetzig and Ueber Insurance Inc., (NFP)
49A02-1211-CT-903
Reverses partial summary judgment declaring that Ueber acted as the agent of Century Surety when accepting notice of an occurrence and lawsuit from an insured, Camburad, LLC, which operated the Ugly Monkey nightclub. Remands, holding that Ueber did not act as an agent and that Camburad and Ugly Monkey are entitled to summary judgment on the claim of breach of duty to defend.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT