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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.