Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.
Clark County REMC v. Reis, No. 21S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2021).
Board policy, which established reimbursement benefits for former directors, was not an offer because it did not convey with reasonable certainty promises manifesting an intention or invitation to contract with another; no contract existed.
Family Dental Care, P.C. v. Mousa, No. 21A-PL-670, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2021).
Liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Wage Payment Statute were not available to plaintiff because she did not file a wage payment claim with the Department of Labor, even though the claim exceeded the $6,000 threshold.
Guthery v. State, No. 21A-CR-711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2021).
The felony suspendability statute is not a progressive penalty statute, as it does not elevate the seriousness of an offense and its corresponding penalty due to a previous conviction. Rather, it merely limits the discretion of the trial court to order a sentence to be suspended, all within the existing sentencing range for the offense. To that end, the felony suspendability statute is not a sentencing enhancement statute to which double-enhancement analysis applies.
Hall v. State, No. 20S-LW-00660, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2021).
Life without parole was an appropriate sentence for woman who hired someone to murder her stepfather.