Although Mortgage Company’s mortgage foreclosure claim against Homeowners was equitable, Homeowners’ counterclaims based on consumer protection statutes were legal in nature; thus, Homeowners are entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims.
Paloutzian v. Taggart, No. 49A02-0908-CV-817, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2010)
The 2003 amendment to Ind. Code § 30-4-2.1-2, which abrogated the stranger to the adoption rule, applies retroactively to a trust created in 1953 before the settlor’s son adopted two children.
Calvert v. State, No. 40A05-0911-CR-659, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Evidence proved no more than defendant’s preparation to commit a crime, which was not sufficient to prove the “substantial step” required for an attempt conviction. Defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon was based on proof he possessed the same sawed-off shotgun relied on to convict him of possession of a sawed-off shotgun, so that sawed-off shotgun conviction was prohibited under Indiana double jeopardy law.
Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-0908-CR-736, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
Plurality opinion holds that officer’s incursions into auto passenger compartment, after driver had been arrested outside the vehicle, violated 4th Amendment and Indiana Constitution Art. I Sec. 11.
Wilkins v. State, No. 02A03-0910-CR-451, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)
When factors which would justify a “no-knock” residential search were not “exigent,” but rather were known when the search warrant was applied for but not presented to the judge to have judicial authority for a “no-knock” entry, and the policy of the law enforcement agency was to routinely leave the “no-knock” decision to the police team rather than obtaining approval from an independent authority, suppression of the fruits of the “no-knock” search was appropriate under the Indiana Constitution.