David, J. In Indiana, civil forfeiture actions typically proceed under one of two statutes: the general forfeiture statute or the racketeering forfeiture statute. Today, we consider whether the racketeering forfeiture statute permits a court to release, to the defendant, funds seized in a forfeiture action so the defendant can hire counsel in that same action. […]
Civil
PNC Bank, N.A. v, Page, No. 21A-MF-1974, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2022).
The orders issued during COVID-19 pausing the accrual of interest did not suspend the automatic accrual of non-discretionary interest provided by the terms of a private loan instrument and as permitted by statute.
Cruz v. Cruz, No. 21A-DN-1954, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 4, 2022).
Annulment and dissolution of marriage are separate causes of action; the trial court erred in finding an annulment petition was a mere amendment of the dissolution petition.
Arrendale v. American Imaging & MRI, LLC, No. 21S-CT-370, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 24, 2022).
Non-hospital medical entities that provide patients with health care may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor through apparent or ostensible agency.
Wilson v. Anonymous Defendant 1, No. 21S-CT-371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 24, 2022).
A medical provider may be held liable for the acts of an apparent agent based on the provider’s manifestations of an agency relationship with the apparent agent, which causes a third party to rely on such a relationship.