In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”
Civil
J.M. v. M.A., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)
Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”
Perdue v. Greater Lafayette Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Home Hospital, No. 79A05-1011-CT-687, ___N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2011)
Ind. Code 32-30-1-5, the statute of repose, does not apply in plaintiff’s negligence suit; plaintiff was not alleging deficiency in the design or construction to support her claim, but was alleging breach of the duty to protect invitees from a dangerous condition of the premises.
Price v. Kuchaes, No. 45A04-1007-CT-467, ___ N.E.2d___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2011)
Plaintiff was divested of standing to pursue his action while his bankruptcy was pending, but the bankruptcy’s dismissal before the trial court ruled on either party’s motion for summary judgment returned ownership of the action to him and plaintiff then had standing to pursue the action.
Robertson v. B.O., No. 49A04-1009-CT-528, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2011)
The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can introduce evidence concerning the existence and compensable nature of plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the healthcare provider settling the claim of medical malpractice.