Search Results

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Joshua R. Campbell
22-3283
Criminal. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Damon Leichty. Affirms the decision of the district court denying Joshua Campbell’s motion to suppress incriminating statements used as evidence. Finds Murphy and Cranley dictate that Campbell’s parole agreement did not threaten a penalty for exercise of his Fifth Amendment protections, and he was not in custody when he made the relevant incriminating statements. Also finds that because Campbell did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right, and it was not otherwise self-executing, the district court properly denied his motion to suppress the evidence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
M.M. v. L.P.
23A-PO-2089
Protection order. Affirms the Clinton Circuit Court’s grant of a protection order against M.M. to protect his ex-wife, L.P. Finds that transfer to the special judge was not required and, even if the trial court should have granted the transfer, any error in this case was harmless. Also finds the trial court did not err when it denied the father’s request to transfer the matter to the special judge in the dissolution matter. Judge Leanna Weissmann dissents with separate opinion.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Geft Outdoor, LLC v. City of Evansville, Indiana
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. Judge James Sweeney. Affirms the district court’s dismissal of  Geft Outdoor’s  complaint against the City of Evansville that challenged the way the city’s ordinance handles permits and allows exceptions to (variances from) the height, spacing, and placement rules for off-premises signs. Finds that by focusing on its quest for a variance, GEFT disqualified itself from making a facial challenge. Also finds GEFT’s problem is not the lack of standing but the fact that it waged a facial challenge when it should have tried an as-applied challenge. Finally, finds the district court’s judgment is modified to make clear that GEFT loses on the merits rather than for lack of standing.