Because payday loan company did not unambiguously include interest in its agreement with the borrower, it cannot recover interest from that borrower.
Hay v. Baumgartner, No. 43A03-0810-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 9, 2009)
Defendants’ stipulation to the entry of a preliminary injunction prevents them from now arguing that it was wrongfully in place, and thereby precludes their recovery of attorney’s fees for its entry.
In re T.S., No. 46S04-0904-JV-160, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 17, 2009)
(1) Indiana Appellate Rule 14.1’s expedited appeals are available to the process of modifying dispositional decrees regarding child placement where a juvenile court does not follow DCS’s recommendation; (2) the juvenile court must accept DCS’s placement recommendations unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the recommendation is “unreasonable” or “contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child”; (3) a finding by the juvenile court that DCS’s recommendation is unreasonable or contrary to the child’s welfare and best interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error; and (4) the juvenile court’s placement determination in this case was not clearly erroneous.
Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)
[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.
Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-795, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)
When the defendant agreed to go to the station for questioning about another matter, he had already received his ticket for driving without his seatbelt, so the subsequent search of his person made for the safety of the officer who would drive him to the station did not violate the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. But because defendant had not agreed to be driven to the station by the police for the questioning, the search of his person was unreasonable under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.