The State failed to establish police officer’s decision to impound defendant’s vehicle adhered to established departmental routine or regulation. While evidence of the department’s written procedure need not be introduced, more than conclusory testimony from an officer is required.
C. Bradford
Cleveland v. State, No. 18A-CR-2298, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2019).
Trial court could not order the destruction of defendant’s handgun for the mere possession of it, but it also could not order its return when he lacked a license to carry.
Heraeus Medical, LLC v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 18A-PL-1823, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 15, 2019)
The trial court’s preliminary injunction and legal conclusions are reversed in part because portions of the non-compete and non-solicitation agreement are unclear and overbroad.
Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weaver, No. 18A-CT-2043, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 1, 2019).
The term “using” is ambiguous in an auto insurance policy, because its meaning is susceptible to differing interpretations by reasonable persons; “using” is not synonymous with “operating.”
Perkins v. Fillio, No. 18A-PL-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2019).
For a premises liability claim regarding a headbutting ram, trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether rams are dangerous as a class of animals and, if so, a genuine issue as to whether Defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the ram from causing harm to invitees.