The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow discovery of defendant’s cell phone; the burden of plaintiff’s proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit in light of defendant’s significant privacy concerns.
Civil
Taylor v. Allen Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 23S-CT-378, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 13, 2023).
Appeal was dismissed prematurely because plaintiff had 20 business days from the date of the Notice of Defect to submit corrected documents under Ind. Appellate Rule 23.
DeCola v. Norfolk So. Corp., No. 23S-PL-358, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 8, 2023).
The appellate court did not have jurisdiction over denial of summary judgment motion because it was not a final order and did not resolve all claims as to all parties.
Mellowitz v. Ball State University, No. 23S‐PL‐60, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2023).
Shielding post-secondary educational institutions from pandemic‐related class action claims is within the General Assembly’s legislative authority, not an unconstitutional taking, and does not unconstitutionally impair the school’s contract obligations to its students.
Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).
“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”