The three-day extension of time provided by Trial Rule 6(E) applies to summary judgment proceedings.
Civil
Wilson v. Myers, No. 71S03-1305-DR-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 5, 2013).
Trial court abused its discretion in ordering one parent to hand over two children to another parent without a proper evidentiary hearing and with no mention that doing it was in accordance with the Indiana Code.
Krampen v. Krampen, No. 45A05-1212-DR-628, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2013).
The trial court erred in concluding that mother misused child support payments she received and ordering an accounting of future child support payments
Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc., No. 49S02-1302-CT-89, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 29, 2013).
“An auto dealership’s advertisement of an inexpensive used car as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” is textbook puffery—not actionable as deception or fraud, because a reasonable buyer could not take it as a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But when the dealer has inspected the car and should know it has serious problems, answering a buyer’s question about why it idled roughly by claiming that it “would just need a tune-up” may be actionable as fraud.”
In re I.P, No. 49A02-1303-JT-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 29, 2013).
It did not violate the trial rules or father’s right to due process when one magistrate resigned and a different magistrate that was not present at the hearing reported factual findings and conclusions to the judge to issue the subsequent recommended order terminating father’s parental.