Trial court properly held, as a matter of law, that it is not foreseeable that a patron of a bar will be criminally attacked in the parking lot and then confront his assailants, placing himself at risk of further injury.
Civil
J.R. v. S.P., No. 31A04-1706-DC-1284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 15, 2017).
Biological parent whose rights have been terminated cannot circumvent the law by filing a custody action under Ind. Code 31-17-2-3.
Miller v. Town Bd. Of Sellersburg, No. 10A01-1612-MI-2908, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2017).
Town clerk-treasurer could not mandate additional deputies; Ind. Code § 36-5-6-7 states that the town legislative body must approve the appointment of deputies.
In re Unsupervised Estate of Owsley, No. 49A02-1701-EU-207, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2017).
Because the victims of the civil rights action are the decedent’s survivors, not the decedent himself, no estate needed to be open for the sole purpose of pursuing a federal civil rights action.
Buskirk v. Buskirk, No. 06A01-1610-DR-2296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2017).
Contract between husband and wife, on keeping their property and income separate, entered into after marriage disagreement, was an enforceable reconciliation agreement made with valid consideration.