The failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be treated as procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect. Because exhaustion of remedies is not an element of plaintiff’s action, the exhaustion requirement is more appropriately considered an affirmative defense and it is the defendant’s burden to prove.
Stanke v. Swickard, No. 29A02-1412-DR-862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
Defendant’s due process rights were violated and the trial court erred in finding defendant in contempt when the motion for contempt citation did not contain detailed factual allegations, clearly and distinctly set forth the facts alleged to constitute contempt, or specify with reasonable certainty the time and place of the facts supporting the allegations of contempt.
Anderson v. Gaudin, No. 07S01-1505-PL-284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2015).
“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”
In re D.B., No. 49A02-1501-JC-48, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2015).
Child’s absent, out-of-state father should be presumed to be a fit and capable parent unless the state proves otherwise.
Cleveland Range, LLC v. Lincoln Fort Wayne Assoc., LLC, No. 02A05-1503-PL-96, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2015).
T.R. 27 petition to depose witnesses before the initiation of litigation was within the trial court’s discretion, as there was evidence supporting expectations it might be a party to a suit, it seeks to preserve specifically identified facts probative to a key issue, and declining to permit the depositions could result in a failure or delay of justice based on the age of the witnesses.