Ind. Code § 35-38-9-10(f) sets forth mechanisms to enforce expungement provisions; no private right of action exists for failure to properly expunge or seal records after an expungement order is issued.
Dunn v. State, No. 24S-CR-123, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 10, 2024).
Courts should take great caution in using the phrase “and/or,” especially in jury instructions, because it is ambiguous and potentially imprecise. Where wording permits two contradictory interpretations, one correct and one erroneous, the jury may be misled as to the law.
G.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-246, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 10, 2024).
When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse. Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Ind. App. R. 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance.
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., No. 23S-CT-272, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 2, 2024).
Trial court properly dismissed a third-party spoliation claim when there was no special relationship between the parties to create a duty to preserve the evidence.
Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Bd. of Ind.. v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, No. 22A-PL-2938, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 4, 2024).
Recognizes the doctrine of associational standing and affirms the trial court’s finding that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction regarding the abortion law, but remands for a more narrowly tailored injunction.