Ind. Code § 34-12-5-7, which bars class actions against post-secondary educational institutions for claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19, impermissibly conflicts with T.R. 23 and so it is a nullity.
Civil
In re Z.D., No. 22A-JC-875, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2022).
When a party’s first appearance in a case is made in person when it should have been virtual, the court should be hesitant to treat that appearance as defiant or otherwise improper. A parent who requests a contested CHINS fact-finding hearing has a constitutional right to that hearing, and a parent does not forfeit that right by appearing in person to a virtual hearing.
J.L. v. M.M., No. 22A-PO-512, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2022).
The protection order statutes should not be used as a de facto method to modify custody and/or parenting time. However, the protection order statutes offer expedited and ex parte proceedings to provide a “stop gap” to stabilize the situation until the trial court can determine the best interests of the child in a modification proceeding.
Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., No. 22S-CP-302, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 31, 2022).
The church-autonomy doctrine bars teacher’s claims for dismissal from a Catholic school; the trial court properly dismissed the claim under T.R. 12(B)(6).
624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Housing Auth., No. 22S-CT-140, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 29, 2022).
When city only provided notice of the taking and its hearings by publication, even though it knew how to provide personal notice, it deprived the property owner of a meaningful damages hearing.