Notwithstanding the recent revision of the relevant statutes, the General Assembly did not intend for DCS to bear the burden of court-appointed legal services in termination proceedings, and the county should continue to be responsible for those costs.
Nealy v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0812-CV-1096, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2009)
Insurance company was not entitled to setoff pursuant to the advance payment statute because there were multiple defendants and the insurance company was the plaintiffs’, rather than the defendants’, insurer.
Moore v. State, No. 29A02-0811-CR-1039, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2009)
As inmate’s objection to DOC sex offender treatment program’s polygraph requirements was grounded in his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear his motion challenging DOC discipline imposed for alleged invocation of his privilege.
Duran v. State, No. 45A03-0811-CR-569, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 23, 2009)
Forcible entry of a third person’s apartment to apprehend arrest warrant subject did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Ind. Const. Art. I, Section 11.
Payday Today, Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 71A03-0805-CV-255, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2009)
Dunning letter sent to debtor violated § 24-4.5-7-410(d), which prohibits contracting for or collecting attorney’s fees on small loans.