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.
C. Bradford
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.
Budimir v. State, No. 23A-CR-17, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2023).
It is a violation of Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution for an officer who subsequently arrives on scene to detain, and search an individual, without any additional evidence of suspicion, after that individual was released by an officer who was previously on scene.
In re Estate of Bricker, No. 23A-ES-3, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2023).
Property subject to transfer on death is not to be considered part of the decedent’s “net personal and real estate” for purposes of the Spousal Inheritance Statute.