It is clear from the trial court’s comments at the sentencing hearing that it understood the terms of the plea agreement but made a mistake in its written sentencing order and should issue a new order.
Martins v. Hill, No. 18A-CT-2740, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 10, 2019).
A Qualified Settlement Offer must resolve all claims between the parties, including counterclaims, and here, the response to the offer was in substance a counteroffer.
Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-1340, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 11, 2019).
Employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing did not warrant an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
Wilkes v. Celadon Croup, Inc., No. 18A-CT-2011, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 12, 2019)
Summary judgment was reversed because a trucking company did not demonstrate that it owed no duty to properly securing items to be transported by a trucker.
Heraeus Medical, LLC v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 18A-PL-1823, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 15, 2019)
The trial court’s preliminary injunction and legal conclusions are reversed in part because portions of the non-compete and non-solicitation agreement are unclear and overbroad.