“Where Trial Rule 15(C) addresses the relation back of amendments ‘changing the party against whom a claim is asserted,’ it requires that the party to be brought in by amendment ‘knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.’ T.R. 15(C) (emphasis added). In contrast, Trial Rule 17(C) applies where ‘the name or existence of a person is unknown.’ T.R. 17(F).”
Civil
Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Tucker, No. 22S01-1506-PL-401, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
Homeowners met criteria for adverse possession of disputed property.
Strozewski v. Strozewski, No. 29A02-1412-DR-885, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2015).
Dissolution was filed in a preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(8), and although preferred venue may lie in more than one county, if an action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted.
Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, No. 49A02-1410-CT-713, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 5, 2015).
The general rule that owners of domestic animals are liable only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities applies to all domestic animals – even pigs.
State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.