For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in claims alleging breach of implied warranty, a buyer need only show to the satisfaction of the factfinder that the seller had “a reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. The buyer can meet this burden of proof by showing that he explicitly asked the seller to cure (i.e., repair, replace, or refund) or that he notified the seller of the purported defect and the seller proposed no remedy in response.
Qualls v. State, No. 24A-CR-131, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 15, 2025).
Unless there is new evidence or information discovered to warrant additional charges, the potential for prosecutorial vindictiveness is too great for courts to allow the State to bring additional charges against a defendant who successfully moves for a mistrial, thus creating the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Kelly v. State, No. 25S-PC-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2025).
While the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies require appellate screening before filing a successive petition for post-conviction relief, those rules do not require appellate screening before amending a successive petition.
Lammons v. EDCO Environmental Serv., Inc., No. 24A-CT-2057, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2025).
When defendant asked the city to protect consumers from “unscrupulous licensed contractors,” her statement, as a matter of law, did not constitute a false defamatory statement. Defendant neither stated nor implied a provably false fact but merely indicated her honestly held opinion.
Isrig v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., No. 24S-CT-158, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 22, 2025).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied to premises liability cases involving fixtures where an invitee is injured on a landowner’s premises.