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.
Civil
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.
Powell v. State, No. 19S-CR-527, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 18, 2020).
While Indiana’s attempted-murder statute contains no clear unit of prosecution, the multiple shots defendant fired—despite their proximity in space and time—amount to two chargeable offenses based on his dual purpose of intent to kill both victims.
Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 20A-CT-214, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2020).
Defendant was not negligent when its grass grew so high that the grass blocked the view at the intersection because the “dangerous condition” was confined to defendant’s property.
McGowen v. Montes, No. 19A-CT-1707, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2020).
Defendant was rendering emergency care, for purposes of the Good Samaritan Law, when he stopped his vehicle and offered to call 911.