A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in setting aside a default judgment “so long as there exists even slight evidence of excusable neglect.” Because of this deferential standard of review, the trial court’s decision to set aside default judgment was upheld.
Civil
W.M. v. H.T., No. 20A-AD-403, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2020).
In an adoption, the trial court must make specific findings as required by Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a) if it finds that the father’s consent is not needed.
Humphrey v. Tuck, No. 20S-CT-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 8, 2020).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the failure-to-mitigate instruction; only a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support the giving of the instruction.
Singh v. Singh, No. 20A-CT-959, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2020).
Temple had a duty to protect its attendees when it had notice of present and specific circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the risk of an imminent criminal act, and had reason to recognize the probability or likelihood of looming harm on a special day of celebration.
Smith v. Franklin Township Community School Corp., No. 20S-CT-98, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 25, 2020).
Trial Rule 41(F) filing was improperly used to to collaterally attack the merits of the trial court’s dismissal order.