The Indiana Guest Statute does not preclude a passenger from bringing a negligence action against a driver “as to injuries inflicted when such a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver’s attempt to park.”
Mertz v. Mertz, No. 64A03-1108-DR-360, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2012).
A trial court best determines whether under Ind. Code 31-16-12-11 the sufficiency of a plan offered by an obligor to pay arrearage is sufficient to reinstate driving privileges.
Doolin v. State, No. 32A01-1111-CR-545, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 16, 2012).
Admission of in-court field test for marijuana was error under Ev. Rule 702, as the field-tester did not testify as to the “specific name or otherwise identify the test, indicate its reliability or rate of accuracy or error, note the scientific principles on which it is based, or recognize any standards regarding its use and operation.”
Browning v. State, No. 49A05-1110-CR-540, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 17, 2012).
Evidence that defendant had child pornography images in a file-sharing program on his computer and that he knew others using the same file-sharing program could access and download the images in the program on his computer supported his conviction of child exploitation.
M & M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., No. 03A04-1112-CC-639, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 16, 2012).
“We therefore conclude that the Indiana pre-tax sale notice statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not require the government to provide sufficient notice prior to the tax sale either by mail or by personal service to mortgagees who have publicly recorded mortgages, even if such notice is not requested by the mortgagees, and because it provides that, even if the government fails to mail the requested notice or the notice is undeliverable for some reason, the validity of the tax sale will not be affected.”