When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.
Posterity Scholar House, LP v. FCCI Ins. Co., No. 22A-EV-1751, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 1, 2023).
The common law duty of good faith in performing its obligations under an insurance policy that an insurer owes its insured a does not extend to the relationship between surety and obligee in the context of performance and payment bonds on a construction project.
Wilson v. Wilson, No. 22A-DC-1949, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).
Commentary to Indiana Child Support Guideline states, “although Social Security benefits are not reflected on Line 7 of the child support Worksheet, the benefit should be considered, and its effect and application shall be included in the written order for support of that child.” Accordingly, a trial court is required to make findings whether a child’s overall financial needs are satisfied in whole, or in part, by the Social Security benefits the child receives.
Tutt v. Evansville Police Dept., No. 23A-MI-1723, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).
Neither APRA, nor Title 9, authorizes a fee to inspect an accident report.
J.B. v. State, No. 22A-JV-612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).
Where a videotaped interview of a child victim is entered into evidence erroneously because it did not meet the cited exceptions to the rule against hearsay, where the defendant had no right to confront the child victim, and where the record contains no other evidence of the elements of the alleged delinquent act, the admission of the videotaped interview constitutes fundamental error.