“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”
Civil
Stafford v. Szymanowski, No. 89S01-1502-CT-64, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
The patient’s designated expert medical testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding doctor’s negligence.
Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc., No. 71S03-1506-CT-350, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2015).
Because the applicable Indiana statute does not impose the requirement of a pre-placement registry check, and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that adoption agency had any duties in excess of its statutory obligations, summary judgment for the adoption agency was properly granted.
Byers v. Moredock, No. 34A04-1412-CT-560, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2015).
Property owners have no duty for damage done by tenant’s dog.
City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, No. 02A05-1408-CT-359, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2015).
A violation of the Seatbelt Act may not be used to prove contributory negligence.