The Dram Shop Act modified common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol, but did not eliminate it.
Teising v. State, No. 24S-CR-55, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 15, 2024).
The maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not relieve the State of its burden to prove criminal intent, even when the defendant bases their claimed lack of intent on a misunderstanding of the civil law.
State ex. rel. Allen v. Carroll Cir. Ct., No. 23S‐OR‐311, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
The trial court lacked the authority to remove counsel without considering other, less drastic options and weighing the prejudice to the defendant.
Morehouse v. Dux North, LLC, No. 23S-PL-71, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
For an implied easement by prior use, the claimed servitude must predate the severance creating the separate parcels. For an implied easement of necessity, the claimed necessity need arise only at severance and not before.
Morgan v. State, No. 23A-CR-1489, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2024).
Under Indiana’s Red Flag Law, when a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without first obtaining a warrant, the officer must submit an affidavit to a court describing why the officer believes the individual is dangerous. If the court finds probable cause exists to believe the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency to retain the firearm. To sustain the dangerousness finding, the State must prove, at a hearing, by clear and convincing evidence material facts demonstrating the individual is dangerous.