Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions – Criminal No. 9.05’s second sentence in its “intentionally” definition (“[i]f a person is charged with intentionally causing a result by his conduct, it must have been his conscious objective not only to engage in the conduct but also to cause the result”) “represents a correct statement of the law.”
LBM Realty, LLC, v. Mannia, No. 71A03-1402-PL-66, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).
“Indiana should hereby adopt the largely case-by-case approach, finding that a tenant’s liability to the landlord’s insurer for damage-causing negligence depends on the reasonable expectations of the parties to the lease as ascertained from the lease as a whole and any other admissible evidence.”
In re I.B., No. 82A05-1402-AD-65, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).
A prospective adoptive parent’s prior conviction was not dispositive (Ind. Code § 31-19-11-1) and the children were entitled to an individualized determination of their best interests.
Lyons v. Richmond Cmty. School Corp., No. 89S04-1312-PL-788, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2014).
Because whether a plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the ITCA is one of law, but the answer may depend upon the resolution of disputed facts, the issue should be handled by a carefully drafted jury instruction.
Carpenter v. State, No. 02S05-1404-CR-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2014).
Police’s warrantless home entry through open back door to retrieve an aggressive and bloody dog violated the Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11 protection against unreasonable search.