The Court adopts a balancing approach to resolve the custody of frozen pre-embryos that looks at: (1) the intended use of the pre-embryos by the party seeking to preserve them; (2) the reasonable ability of the party seeking implantation to have children through other means; (3) the parties’ original reasons for undergoing IVF, which may favor preservation over disposition; (4) the potential burden on the party seeking to avoid becoming a genetic parent; (5) either party’s bad faith attempt to use the pre-embryos as leverage in the dissolution proceeding; and (6) other considerations relevant to the parties’ unique situation.
Civil
Pennington v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., No. 23S-CT-182, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2024).
The test for civil liability for conditions on the land looks at whether the danger posed by the specific condition involved was foreseeable, but the test for activities on the land looks at whether it was foreseeable that a general class of persons to which the plaintiff belonged might suffer the general type of harm involved.
Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. Vangundy, No. 23S‐PL‐171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 2, 2024).
A party’s opposition to the motion for default judgment preserved its challenge for appeal and it was not required to also file a T.R. 60(B) motion.
Murphy v. Cook, No. 23A-SC-1614, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2023).
Courts should be mindful of the provisions and requirements of T.R. 64(A) with respect to issuing a body attachment, including the provision that body attachments expire 180 days after issuance and the expiration date must appear on the face of the writ.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 23A-CT-00303, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2023).
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.