Hotel did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from a criminal attack by an unknown assailant on their premises.
State v. Neff, No. 18A02-1708-IF-1933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2018).
An officeholder need not abandon each and every statutory duty before removal from office may be warranted. “[F]ailure, over a period of years, to perform a critical, official and mandatory duty for a clerk-treasurer falls squarely within the confines of Article VI Sections 7 and 8 of the Indiana Constitution and our legislature’s response via the Removal Statute.”
Estate of Staggs v. ADS Logistics Co., LLC, No. 64A03-1708-CT-1961, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2018).
Company that warehoused steel coil that became unsecured during travel killing other motorists had no duty to the motorists killed. It is unforeseeable that a warehousing entity’s conduct in warehousing the cargo or in loading the cargo onto another entity’s vehicle at the instruction of the other entity’s driver would result in harm to motorists.
McGrath v. State, No. 49S04-1710-CR-653, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 1, 2018).
Investigation into and observations of the home were “sufficiently indicative of a marijuana grow” when viewed together and in light of the officer’s training. The issuance of a second warrant was proper under the collective knowledge doctrine, which presumes the officer’s credibility so no special showing of reliability was required.
State v. Myers, No. 69A01-1708-CR-1805, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 24, 2018).
A defendant must object to a trial date set beyond the one-year guarantee in Criminal Rule 4(C) in time to permit the trial court to reset the trial for a date within the proper period.