When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.
C. Goff
Decker v. Star Financial Group, Inc., No. 22S-PL-305, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 21, 2023).
Bank could not add an arbitration addendum to terms and conditions of the bank account because the phrase, “any term of this agreement” only allowed modification existing terms, not adding a new term.
US Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 22S-CT-264, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2023).
The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.
Town of Linden v. Birge, No. 22S-PL-352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 7, 2023).
Flooding issues on caused by Town’s drainage plan are properly analyzed as a per se permanent taking and that case is remanded for the trial court to decide (1) whether the flooding here amounted to a substantial permanent physical invasion of the Property (including that portion lying within the drainage easement), and (2) for a final determination of damages.
Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).
When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.