If a person “is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction,” that person must “register for the period required by the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer.” I.C. § 11-8-8-19(f). This applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.
C. Goff
Thomas v. Foyst, No.25S-MI-148, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
The only statutory authority for a court to set aside election results is through an election contest. A declaratory judgment action filed before the election did not preserve the candidacy challenge.
Thomas v. Valpo Motors, Inc., No. 24S-PL-286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 13, 2025).
For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in claims alleging breach of implied warranty, a buyer need only show to the satisfaction of the factfinder that the seller had “a reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. The buyer can meet this burden of proof by showing that he explicitly asked the seller to cure (i.e., repair, replace, or refund) or that he notified the seller of the purported defect and the seller proposed no remedy in response.
Diamond Quality, Inc. v. Dana Light Axle Products, LLC, No. 24S-CQ-265, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 24, 2025).
Absent a contractual or statutory duty, a property owner is always justified in excluding another from the owner’s premises.
Nardi v. King, No. 25S-PL-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff “substantially” prevailed in his APRA suit by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record, even though he received only a portion of all requested records. A plaintiff who has substantially prevailed can recover attorney’s fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims if it is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim.