Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over an attorney that never practiced law in Indiana and did not seek business from Indiana residents – she had no minimum contacts within or substantial connection to Indiana.
Reef v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 49A05-1501-CC-3, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2015).
When a party failed to properly designate evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s award of summary judgment was inappropriate.
Caldwell v. State, No. 22A01-1411-CR-479, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
In prosecution for burglary and attempted rape, Defendant’s alleged “peeping” at another home in the same neighborhood 56 days later was inadmissible because it was not “strikingly similar” to the charged offense; but conclusive DNA evidence rendered the error harmless.
Gibson v. State, No. 39S05-1509-CR-517, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).
Pulling the victim to the ground during the course of a battery was insufficient to establish D-felony criminal confinement by removal under I.C. § 35-42-3-3(a)(2).
Alkhalidi v. Ind. Dept. of Correction, No. 77A01-1406-SC-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2015).
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.