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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT