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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT