The existence of an emergency order of protection issued in Illinois in favor of one party did not require the trial court to transfer the other party’s Indiana petition for protective order to Illinois under Ind. Code § 34-26-5-6(4).
Civil
Ind. Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, No. 20S-MI-62, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 27, 2020).
Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform property owner of the impending tax sale of the property by first sending notice by first class and certified mail to the address listed on the deed for the property, and then publishing notice. The auditor was not required to search its internal records for a better tax sale notice address.
Brown v. Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management, No. 20S-MI-609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
Vacates the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that makes the broad statement that law-of-the-case doctrine “is applicable only when an appellate court determines a legal issue, not a trial court.”
H.H. v. S. H., No. 20A-PO-926, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2020).
Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(f) does not require that the trial court make a particularized finding to support a deviation from the stated two-year term when issuing a protective order.
In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.R., No. 20S-JT-63, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2020).
Drug test records are exceptions to the hearsay rule under the records of a regularly conducted business activity (Ind. Rule Evid. 803(6)).