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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT