Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the respondent violated MLRPC 1.1 when “the bankruptcy court sent Davy three deficiency notices regarding the bankruptcy filing” because the respondent did not adequately research her case
• noting that “the commingling of personal and client funds, including the failure to maintain a separate [client] trust account, is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
• concluding that the respondent violated MLRPC 1.3 by not filing a complaint until 9:11 p.m. on the day the statute of limitations expired, failing to correct the deficiency that caused the court to reject it, and failing to notify the client that the complaint had been rejected
• “[W]e decline to consider the ‘Motion to Dismiss.’ Because [the respondent] filed the ‘Motion to Dismiss’ before the hearing judge issued her opinion, the ‘Motion to Dismiss’ does not address the hearing judge’s findings of fact[.]”
• “[W]e decline to consider the ‘Motion to Dismiss.’ Because [the respondent] filed the ‘Motion to Dismiss’ before the hearing judge issued her opinion, the ‘Motion to Dismiss’ does not address the hearing judge’s findings of fact[.]”
• “[I]n no instance does [the respondent] demonstrate that anything in the record contradicts any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact____ [U]nable to discern any meaningful challenge to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we overrule the exceptions[.]” (Footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).