Small claims court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to evict someone buying a house on contract; the property was worth more than $10,000 and the dispute was to ownership of the house.
NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC v. Bruski, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2024).
Trial court properly denied TR 12(B)(6) motion; the complaint encompasses viable claims premised on the failure to warn after potentially contributing to a hazard on the road, and the failure to comply with the statute requiring driver to turn on emergency flashers and place warning devices behind his vehicle.
Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.
Hancz-Barron v. State, No. 22S-LW-310, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
To recommend LWOP, the jury must (1) find the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravator exists, (2) provide a special verdict form for each aggravating circumstance alleged, and (3) find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. If those three steps are satisfied and the jury recommends LWOP, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the crime(s), consecutive life sentences for each murder victim does not render the sentence disproportionate.
Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2024).
Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.