Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.
Appeals
New v. Personal Representative for the Estate of New, No. 71A04-0912-CV-744, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)
Estate beneficiaries were not entitled to notice when the personal representative’s amended final accounting, changed as ordered by the court after notice and a hearing, was filed and approved by the court.
S.D. v. State, No. 49A02-1004-JV-442, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2010)
Juvenile waiver statute’s meaningful consultation requirement was not met when juvenile’s conversation with guardian was videotaped by police and juvenile and guardian knew it was being taped.
Curtis v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)
“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”
Owens v. State, No. 29A02-1002-CR-390, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)
Policeman’s testimony that defendant had not called him, after the officer left his card on defendant’s door with a note asking defendant to call, did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.