ILNews

Opinions March 21, 2014

March 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nathan Wertz v. Asset Acceptance, LLC.
71A03-1305-CC-175
Civil Collection. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of Wertz’s counterclaim against Asset Acceptance, LLC. Finds that the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code’s licensure requirement does not apply to Asset because it does not have a physical location in Indiana. Since Asset is not required to obtain a license under IUCCC, Wertz’s claims that Asset violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cannot stand.  

Henry D. Hull v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1305-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Darrell Turner, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1306-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Justin D. Coates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1305-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count of Class D felony obstruction of justice.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.W.K., R.K., J.N.K., B.K., and J.K., Minor Children, and S.K., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
75A05-1307-JT-368
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

State of Indiana v. Stephen Floyd Smith (NFP)
71A03-1303-CR-88
Affirms partial grant of Smith’s motion for discharge of a charge of Class D felony domestic battery pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C); affirms denial of discharge of a later-added count of Class A misdemeanor battery; and remands for proceedings on the misdemeanor battery count.
 
David A. Shane v. Sheila Shane (NFP)
18A04-1308-DR-439
Domestic relation. Dismisses appeal of denial of a prisoner’s petition to eliminate child support arrearage for a child who died in a fire in 2006 as untimely. Judge Edward Najam wrote the opinion; Judge Terry Crone concurred in the result without opinion; and Judge John Baker dissented, holding that he would affirm the trial court on the merits but disagreed with the majority conclusion that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Barbara Loomis v. James Loomis (NFP)
45A03-1307-DR-252
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court determination husband did not breach a mediated agreement and denial of wife’s request for interest, damages and fees, and denies husband’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Brady D. Ericson and Tiffany J. Ericson v. Bloomfield State Bank (NFP)
53A04-1307-MF-376
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of the Ericsons’ motion for relief from summary judgment in favor of Bloomfield State Bank.
 
Kathy Jo Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1308-CR-430
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT