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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT