small claims
Judge tosses township jurisdiction challenge in collection cases
March 22, 2013
Dave StaffordA federal judge has ruled that Marion County collections cases need not be filed in the township where a defendant lives or
a contract was signed, a key ruling regarding a practice criticized as “forum shopping.”
MoreSeparate notice argument not enough to vacate small claims judgment
March 8, 2013
Marilyn OdendahlA business’s argument that it should have been served with a separate notice of a small claims action was rejected by
the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday.
MoreJudges uphold refund to pilot unhappy with plane rental’s service
February 28, 2013
Jennifer NelsonA man who prepaid into an account to be used when he rented planes to fly is entitled to a refund of $1,755.88 from a company
offering flight instruction and rentals, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The judges rejected the company’s claims
that the small claims court erred by ruling in the pilot’s favor.
MoreWill small claims court stay or will it go?
February 27, 2013
Dave StaffordMarion County's busiest docket is at the center of a judge-trustee tug-of-war over location.
MoreAttorney: Marion County small claims 'forum shopping' problems persist
February 27, 2013
Dave StaffordA Chicago attorney who has filed at least six federal class-action lawsuits alleging collections companies engaged in “forum
shopping” in Marion County Small Claims Courts said the practice appears to be continuing despite township court reforms
announced last year.
MoreJudge: More small claims reforms pursued
September 4, 2012
Dave StaffordMore reforms that could address “forum shopping” in Marion County Small Claims courts will be undertaken this
month, the judge presiding over a review of township court operations said.
More3 task force proposals address issues in Marion County Small Claims courts
May 1, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Marion County Small Claims Task Force created by the Indiana Supreme Court has released its report outlining its investigation
into problems within the county’s small claims courts. The report proposes three ways to address the problems, including
incorporating the small claims courts into Marion Superior Court.
MoreLandlord sent itemized letter on time
May 4, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed judgment in favor of a tenant in a security deposit dispute, ruling that the landlord
did deliver an itemized damages letter within statutory deadlines.
MoreHigh court takes 4 cases
March 15, 2011
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to four cases, including two dealing with whether a trial court should assert
exemptions in garnishment actions on behalf of pro se debtors.
MoreJudge grants attorney summary judgment in collections suit
November 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA federal judge ruled in favor of an Indianapolis attorney involved in a class-action suit alleging he violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The judge granted summary judgment to the attorney after finding the class representative fell outside
the class definition.
MoreRules amended regarding default judgments and military service
October 29, 2010
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court has approved amendments to the Indiana small claims and trial procedure rules.
MoreJudges split on court's role in garnishments with pro se debtors
October 28, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals was divided on whether a trial court should assert exemptions in garnishment actions on behalf
of debtors who aren’t represented by counsel.
MoreCourt erred in dismissing claim with prejudice
December 30, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a woman's claims against her former tenants, finding
the court misinterpreted a previous appellate ruling to support the dismissal.
MoreCourt remands to recalculate attorneys' fees
December 19, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the eviction of a renter and an award of damages in favor of her former landlord,
but it reversed the amount of attorneys' fees she has to pay because the trial court's rationale in determining the
amount was insufficient.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.