The court properly gave the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction for responsible cause because it “closely tracks our Supreme Court’s definition of proximate cause” and although it does not contain the word “omission,” the term “conduct” includes both acts and omissions.
Civil
Avery v. Avery, No. No. 49S05-1102-PL-76, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).
“The Indiana Trial Rules apply to will contest actions, and the failure to file an answer or responsive pleading in accordance with Trial Rule 7 may result in a default judgment.”
Goldberg v. Farno, No. 41A01-1007-MF-348, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).
“Plain legal prejudice” is adopted as the standard for determining whether a non-settling defendant has standing to challenge a partial settlement to which it is not a party.
K.S. v. B.W., No. 22A05-1102-DR-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).
Ind. Code 31-9-2-35.5, defining a de facto custodian, applies only to custody proceedings after a paternity determination, actions for child custody or modification of custody, and temporary placement of a child in need of services taken into custody; it does not apply in the case of visitation rights of a boyfriend over an ex-girlfriend’s child.
Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 28S01-1102-CV-78, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Sept. 15, 2011)
“If equitable and legal causes of action or defenses are present in the same lawsuit, the court must examine several factors of each joined claim — its substance and character, the rights and interests involved, and the relief requested. After that examination, the trial court must decide whether core questions presented in any of the joined legal claims significantly overlap with the subject matter that invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court. If so, equity subsumes those particular legal claims to obtain more final and effectual relief for the parties despite the presence of peripheral questions of a legal nature. Conversely, the unrelated legal claims are entitled to a trial by jury.”