On rehearing, the Court recognizes the practical difficulties that businesses may face in securing affirmative consent to contract modifications from existing customers and notes that it leaves open the possibility of adopting, in the future, a different standard governing the offer and acceptance of unilateral contracts between businesses and consumers.
C. Goff
Zaragoza v. Wexford of Ind., LLC, No. 23S-CT-99, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 25, 2024).
The trial court should not have granted summary judgment. An inmate must rely on prison authorities for their medical needs. If they aren’t meeting those needs, the courts must not prematurely close their doors to a potentially meritorious claim.
Pennington v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., No. 23S-CT-182, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2024).
The test for civil liability for conditions on the land looks at whether the danger posed by the specific condition involved was foreseeable, but the test for activities on the land looks at whether it was foreseeable that a general class of persons to which the plaintiff belonged might suffer the general type of harm involved.
State v. $2,435 in United States Currency and Alucious Q. Kizer, No. 23S-CR-72, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 31, 2023).
A claimant in an action brought under Indiana’s civil forfeiture statute has a constitutional right to trial by jury.
Land v. IU Credit Union, No. 23S-CP-115, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 24, 2023).
The bank provided its customer with reasonable notice of its offer to amend its bank account terms, but the customer’s silence and inaction did not amount to acceptance of the amended terms.