« Ind. Gov't. - "Amazon Passes Tax Milestone " What about Indiana? | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decided one Indiana case Nov. 5th »

Friday, November 08, 2013

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 3 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Hitesh Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, as an Assignee of Columbus Bank and Trust as Issuer of Aspire Visa, an 8-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Hitesh Seth appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”) on Midland’s complaint against Seth for nonpayment of credit card debt. Seth presents a single dispositive issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Midland had satisfied its burden of proof under Trial Rule 56(C) We reverse and remand. * * *

Seth contends that Midland did not satisfy its burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In particular, Seth maintains that much of Midland’s designated evidence is inadmissible hearsay or otherwise insufficient to support summary judgment. We must agree. * * *

We hold that Midland has failed as a matter of law to designate evidence to make a prima facie case that it is entitled to summary judgment on its complaint. Accordingly, the burden of proof did not shift to Seth to show that there exist questions of material fact precluding summary judgment. We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

In Ryan R. Schroeder v. State of Indiana , an 11-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Ryan Schroeder appeals his convictions for five counts of Class A felony child molesting and his aggregate sentence for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, seven counts of Class C felony child exploitation, one count of Class D felony theft, seven counts of Class D felony possession of child pornography, and two counts of Class D felony voyeurism. We affirm.

Schroeder raises two issues, which we restate as:
I. whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his Class A felony child molesting convictions; and
II. whether his fifty-four-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. * * *

The evidence is sufficient to sustain Schroeder’s convictions for the Class A felony child molestation, and his fifty-four-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Eric D. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James D. Minnich v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jan A. Riddle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2013 10:46 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions