If a ruling involves the granting, modifying, or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction and has not been entered within ten days after the hearing thereon, there has been a delay in ruling and an interested party may immediately praecipe for withdrawal under the procedure provided in Trial Rule 53.1(E); it is not necessary for a party to await the thirty-day period described in Trial Rule 53.1(A) before filing a praecipe for withdrawal.
Palacios v. State, No. 29A02-0908-CR-750, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2010)
Daughter’s translation of her mother’s statements to investigating officer were admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception.
Skinner v. State, No. 55A01-0811-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2010)
Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness through the attorney-client relationship, particularly when there were adequate alternative sources of impeachment available to defendant.
Bules v. Marshall County, No. 50S03-1001-CV-57, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 27, 2010)
The Indiana Tort Claims Act’s immunity for losses caused by temporary weather conditions during the period of reasonable response to a weather condition lasts at least until the weather condition has stabilized.
Johnson v. Johnson, No. 46S04-0907-CV-00346, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2010)
Dissolution agreement for husband to pay wife for her interest in the family farm, although silent on the subject, must have contemplated the regular annual renewal of the farm’s debt to finance its operations, but not the higher level of debt necessary to finance husband’s obligations to wife; trial court erred in modifying wife’s lien to allow husband to finance his divorce obligations.