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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT