Opinions Sept. 10, 2013

September 10, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John Scott
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
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
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
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
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)
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of James Basinger, et al.

Ronald Andrew Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit