« Ind. Law - "Law Firm Co-founder Returns to Lead Governance Consulting Practice" | Main | Courts - "Under the Iqbal decision, federal judges will now decide at the very start of a litigation whether the plaintiff’s accusations ring true, and they will close the courthouse door if they do not." »

Monday, July 20, 2009

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today, re bankruptcy

In Re: Turner (SD Ind., Coachys, Bankruptcy Judge) is a 26-page, 2-1 opinion written by Judge Posner, reversing the bankruptcy court. Judge Sykes dissents. ND Ind District Judge Van Bokkelin, sitting by designation, concurs in part and concurs in judgment. Judge Sykes concludes in dissent:

I recognize that the majority’s approach is consistent with a decision of the Ninth Circuit in a very similar case. See Blausey v. U.S. Trustee, 552 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2009). I acknowledge as well that both our case and the Ninth Circuit’s concern temporary statutory provisions that have now been replaced by permanent rules, and that the issue is therefore “transitory” and perhaps not worth creating a circuit split. Maj. op. at p. 10. But I am convinced that Blausey was wrongly decided, for the reasons I have explained; it drew a strong dissent from Judge Gorsuch, sitting with the Ninth Circuit by designation, and I think he was right. 552 F.3d at 1134-37 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). I am also not so sanguine about the limited effect of the majority’s jurisdictional decision. It fashions an exception that swallows a jurisdictional rule. A holding that a court clerk’s transmittal of portions of the lowercourt record can substitute for the appealing party’s total noncompliance with a jurisdictional pleading requirement is potentially quite far-reaching.
Another of the 7th Circuit's opinions today, authored by Judge Flaum, U.S. v. Carter, has this intriguing introduction:
David R. Carter is charged with robbery of a Chicago Community Bank branch on the south side of Chicago in February 2008. The constable blundered while investigating his case, and the district court accordingly suppressed much of the evidence against him. The government now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by suppressing (1) a bank teller’s out of court identification of Carter, (2) bait bills and other evidence taken from an apartment where Carter was arrested, and (3) Carter’s post-arrest statement to investigators.

For the following reasons, we reverse the district court’s order suppressing the disputed evidence.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 20, 2009 12:43 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions