Because payday loan company did not unambiguously include interest in its agreement with the borrower, it cannot recover interest from that borrower.
Appeals
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.
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.
Chacon v. Jones-Schilds, No. 02A05-0808-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2009)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proposed evidence of the lack of a recording of an incident at a jail (and the corresponding negative inference therefrom), because the proponent of the evidence failed to comply with the court’s discovery and pretrial orders.