Even though the window tint of defendant’s vehicle was not quite dark enough to establish a Window Tint Statute violation, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle for a Window Tint violation when he could not “clearly recognize or identify the occupant inside” “coupled with the fact that the actual tint closely border[ed] the statutory limit.”
Wright v. Miller, No. 54S01-1207-CT-430, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 21, 2013).
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.”