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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT