The trial court should have withdrawn admissions under T.R. 36(B) because of litigant’s abuse of T.R. 36.
Civil
Belork v. Latimer, No. 75A04-1503-MI-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2016).
“[A]djoining parcel owners can treat a fence not initially constructed on the true property line between their parcels as a partition fence, and in that circumstance the fence will be considered a partition fence for purposes of the maintenance and repair requirements and cost-sharing provisions of the partition fence statute.”
Hill v. Gephart, No. 49A02-1509-CT-1288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2016).
Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 30S01-1510-MI-626, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).
Fortville cannot annex land because the town did not need the territory for its development in the reasonably near future.
Siner v. Kindred Hospital LP, No. 49S05-1604-CT-219, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).
In this medical malpractice case, the defendants’ own designated evidence revealed conflicting medical opinions on the element of causation creating a genuine issue of material fact.