rial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted serving the entirety of the remaining portion of his executed sentence in the DOC due to the level of his limited functioning and financial resources, his previous successful placement on work release, the nature of the violation, and the severity of the court’s sentence.
Price v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services, No. 49A05-1602-PL-380, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2016).
Plaintiff has no private case of action under Ind. Code. § 31-25-2-5 to enforce the maximum caseload standard against the Department of Child Services, but can proceed with her mandate action.
Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, No. 27S02-1510-CT-627, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
“In a negligence action, whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. And in those instances where foreseeability is an element of duty, this necessarily means the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law. “
Rogers v. Martin, No. 02S05-1603-CT-114, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
Although landowner had no duty to protect an invitee from an unforeseeable harm, she did have a duty to protect the invitee from the foreseeable exacerbation of the injury occurring in her home. Under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, a person does not “furnish” alcohol by providing it to someone who already possesses it.
State v. Summers, No. 09A02-1604-MI-933, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2016).
Applying the intent-effects test, no ex post facto violation occurred when defendant committed the underlying offense in Illinois before Indiana’s definition of sex offender had been amended to include an obligation to register as a sex offender.