“Because the trial court had established a duty to support the children in a court order issued prior to July 1, 2012 and the children were younger than twenty-one years of age, Mother was entitled to file her petition for post-educational expenses based on I.C. § 31-16-6-6(a) & (c).”
Civil
Littke v. Littke, No. 64A03-1211-DR-509, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2013).
Under the 2013 amendment to Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6, retroactive to July 1, 2012, a petition for postsecondary educational expenses for a nineteen-year-old child was timely.
Hortenberry v. Palmer, No. 10A04-1301-CT-17, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2013).
Trial Rule 3 is a “bright-line rule”; paying the filing fee is required for the commencement of an action.
Redington v. State, No. 53A01-1210-CR-461, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2013).
Rejects challenges based on the Indiana Constitution to the statutory procedure for retaining firearms of a “dangerous” person and concludes that evidence supported the trial court’s finding the respondent was “dangerous” so that his fifty-one firearms should be retained by the police.
Manley v. Sherer, No. 59S01-1205-PL-249, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 8, 2013).
A medical malpractice suit should not have been disposed of through summary judgment in favor of the doctor.