The bar owed its patrons a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect them from foreseeable criminal attacks of third parties.
Appeals
Sandleben v. State, No. 82A01-1407-CR-284 (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 17, 2015).
Evidence defendant, “a complete stranger,” followed a girl closely in a store and took video with a small camera twice in nine months, making the girl “nervous and scared,” sufficed for a conviction of stalking; rejects claim that the taking of video was a constitutionally protected expressive activity.
Rutledge v. State, No. 85A04-1407-CR-330, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2015).
Circumstances leading to defendant’s OWI arrest amounted to a consensual encounter, but even considering the police action to have been an investigatory stop it was permitted by the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 11.
Price v. Charles Brown Charitable Remainder Unitrust Trust, No. 74A01-1409-TR-401, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App. , March 18, 2015).
Although under a joint defense agreement privileged information was disclosed, it did not bar one party from suing the other; the “specific claims of privilege will need to be resolved as they are encountered in discovery or at trial.”
Jahangirizadeh v. Pazouki, No. 29A02-1408-DR-530, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App. , March 19, 2015).
Although the motion to set aside adequately alleged that the court’s property division was actually influenced by a party’s alleged falsification of assets, it was not enough to establish a possible case for an independent action for fraud or fraud on the court.