Defendant’s criminal recklessness conviction vacated as violating double jeopardy prohibition because factfinder used the essential elements of armed robbery to establish the essential elements of criminal recklessness.
Davis v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc., No. 20A03-1710-CT-2435,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 13, 2018).
Injured worker was not a “user” or “consumer” entitled to relief under the Indiana Product Liability Act.
Stachowski v. Estate of Radman, No. 71A05-1708-CT-1776, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2018).
Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to satisfy the duty element of a negligence claim.
T.H. v. State, No. 18S-JV-80,__ N.E.3d __(Ind., March 9, 2018)
Affirms the Court of Appeals opinion that no reasonable fact-finder could find the element of loss of at least $750 was proven beyond a reasonable doubt when there are unexplained anomalies in the repair estimate.
CTB, Inc. v. Tunis, No. 17A-CT-3066, No. 49A02-1704-CT-776,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
A corporation’s “principal office,” for purposes of Trial Rule 75(A)(4), is its “registered office” under Indiana’s corporation law.