A “devisee” for will contests includes only devisees of the will being challenged and devisees of the next will in line who would directly benefit if the challenged will were set aside. To award attorney’s fees in a will contest, “First, the claimant seeking fees must prove that some or all of her claims were made in good faith and with just cause. The trial court must then make a preliminary determination as to which of the claims meet this standard. Then, the claimant is required to come forward with evidence showing the amount of attorney fees expended only for the claims that meet the statutory standard.”
Masters v. Masters, No. 02S04-1504-DR-156, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 16, 2015).
The proper standard of review under the Family Law Arbitration Act is the clearly erroneous standard prescribed by Trial Rule 52(A).
Fox v. Bonam, No. 55A01-1503-PO-112, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, Oct. 16, 2015).
The trial court erred in ordering the sheriff to seize firearms as part of a protective order between neighbors.
McKinley v. State, No. 49A02-1502-CR-78, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2015).
Instructing the jury that defendant could be convicted under I.C. § 35-48-4-1(a)(2)(C) for “knowingly” possessing cocaine with intent to deliver was not fundamental error, although defining “intent to deliver” may have been preferable.
Tiplick v. State, No. 49S04-1505-CR-287, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 7, 2015).
Synthetic-drug (aka “spice”) and “look-alike drug” statutes are not unconstitutional for vagueness or delegating legislative authority to administrative agency. But synthetic-drug charging informations were insufficient, requiring dismissal without prejudice, for failing to reference the emergency administrative rule criminalizing the “XLR11” drug on which the charges were based.