Ind. Code § 31-37-18-1.3 requires that a delinquent child be given notice of and an opportunity to be heard during a dispositional or modification hearing; however, the child is not required to be physically present and participation via video conferencing is enough.
R.R. v. State, No. 18S-JV-230, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 13, 2018).
A juvenile has a right to be present at a fact-finding hearing under Ind. Code 31-32-5-1, unless waived by counsel; waived by parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem; or waived by the child.
Gates v. O’Connor, No. 18A-CT-58, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2018).
Because the designated evidence negates the proximate cause element of the legal malpractice claim, the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
Cox v. Evansville Police Dept., No. 18S-CT-447, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 13, 2018).
Cities may be liable under the respondeat superior scope-of-employment rule for sexual assaults by on-duty police officers, but the common-carrier exception does not apply.
Hummel v. State, No. 75A03-1710-PC-2449, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2018).
A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement