FSSA had a right to intervene in guardianship because the spousal support order diverted money that would have otherwise been used to pay medical bills. The trial court could not increase spousal support because the state Medicaid statute requires a “fair hearing before the State agency” to determine if an allowance should be increased.
C. Bradford
Konkle v. State, No. 23A-CR-783, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2024).
The eggshell-skull doctrine does not apply in cases of murder or voluntary manslaughter. The relevant statutes require that the defendant either must intend to kill the victim or know that his actions will likely result in the victim’s death, which is inconsistent with the proposition that you take your victim as you find them.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 23A-CT-00303, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2023).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow discovery of defendant’s cell phone; the burden of plaintiff’s proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit in light of defendant’s significant privacy concerns.
City of Carmel v. Barham Investments, LLC, No. 22A-PL-2399, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2023).
The taking of real property by eminent domain extinguishes any easements burdening the property.
McConnell v. Doan, No. 23A-CT-145, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2023).
The trial court properly appointed a special master pursuant to Indiana Commercial Court Rule 5 and T.R. 70 to take the necessary steps to satisfy a party’s contractual obligations.