Trial court erred in excluding plaintiffs’ expert witness when the circumstances of the case warranted “some lesser, preliminary, or more pointed sanction fashioned to address counsel’s unsatisfactory conduct in this case without depriving the plaintiffs of their ability to present the merits of their case at trial.”
Johnson v. Wysocki, No. 45S04-1211-CT-634, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 25, 2013).
For residential real estate transactions to which the Indiana’s Disclosure Statutes apply, the Indiana’s Disclosure Statutes abrogated the common law principles of caveat emptor.
Perkinson v. Perkinson, No. 36S05-1206-DR-371, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 25, 2013).
“[A]n agreement to forego parenting time in exchange for relief from child support is declared void against public policy.”
Hickory Creek at Connersville v. Est. of Combs, No. 21A04-1211-ES-600, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2013).
“[A]ccording to the doctrine of necessaries, a creditor must first seek satisfaction from the income and property of the spouse who incurred the debt and only if those resources are insufficient may a creditor seek satisfaction from the non-contracting spouse.”
Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, __ U.S.__ (June 17, 2013).
Plurality opinion concludes that, if an individual not in custody is voluntarily answering police questions and refuses or fails to answer an incriminating question, he must expressly invoke his privilege against self-incrimination when the question is asked in order to object at trial that the state’s characterizing his silence as evidence of guilt violates the privilege; opinion does not resolve whether at trial the state can use the silence as evidence of guilt if the defendant properly invokes the Fifth Amendment during the questioning.