The amended motion to correct error was a repetitive motion and so the filing of the amended motion did not change the date for filing the notice of appeal.
Civil
Webster v. Walgreen, Co. No. 55A01-1110-CT-442, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 4, 2012).
“’[M]ailing’ for purposes of the Indiana Trial Rules requires the sender to affix sufficient postage.”
Gagan v. Yast, No. 45A05-1107-CT-377, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 5, 2012).
Attorney’s alleged defamatory statements made against his former clients were protected on the grounds of qualified privilege.
Myers v. Coats, No. 49A04-1104-PL-20, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 29, 2012).
Plaintiff had a liberty interest in not being mistakenly labeled as a sex offender and the process to challenge such erroneous listing was inadequate, however, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether a DOC employee personally deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right.
Santelli v. Rahmatullah, No. 49A04-1011-CT-70, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 29, 2012).
Adopts adopt Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14, “Tortfeasor Liable For Failure To Protect The Plaintiff From The Specific Risk Of An Intentional Tort.”