Admonishes DCS for its failure to afford litigants their due process rights and reminds the trial courts of their duty to ensure that litigants’ due process rights are not violated.
Appeals
Morrison v. Vasquez, No. 18A-CT-376, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2018).
Ind. Code § 23-0.5-4-12’s provision that the address of a registered agent does not determine venue is not ineffective under T.R. 75(D).
Johnson v. Blue Chip Casino, LLC, No. 18A-SC-788, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29 2018).
Plaintiff failed to prove that the presence of bed bugs in his hotel room more probably resulted from hotel’s negligence as opposed to another cause; plaintiff’s argument that res loquitur applied failed.
Healey v. Carter, No. 76A03-1711-MI-2681, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Trial court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve defendant’s constitutional claim against the Department of Correction requiring him to register as a sex offender.
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.