Plaintiff has no private case of action under Ind. Code. § 31-25-2-5 to enforce the maximum caseload standard against the Department of Child Services, but can proceed with her mandate action.
Appeals
State v. Summers, No. 09A02-1604-MI-933, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2016).
Applying the intent-effects test, no ex post facto violation occurred when defendant committed the underlying offense in Illinois before Indiana’s definition of sex offender had been amended to include an obligation to register as a sex offender.
State v. Timbs, No. 27A04-1511-MI-1976, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2016).
Forfeiture of a vehicle worth four times the amount of the maximum fine of the crime was excessive.
Davis v. Phelps, No. 03A01-1604-PL-928, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2016).
At the least, the trial court must give an inmate forty-five days to pay the partial filing fee.
McKeen v. Turner, No. 53A05-1511-CT-2047, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2016).
“[A] plaintiff may raise any theories of alleged malpractice during litigation following the [Medical Review Panel] process if (1) the proposed complaint encompasses the theories, and (2) the evidence related to those theories was before the [Medical Review Panel].”