A plaintiff‐debtor’s omission of a lawsuit from their bankruptcy asset schedule does not deprive them of standing to pursue that lawsuit. Judicial estoppel does not bar the claim if the bankruptcy court permits the plaintiff‐debtor to cure their omission by amending their asset schedule.
D. Molter
Lane v. State, No. 24S-CR-150, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2024).
Sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. However, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Reviewing courts will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.
Morales v. Rust, No. 23S-PL-371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2024).
The Affiliation Statute, the statute that contains objective criteria for determining eligibility to appear on the primary ballot of a major political party and discretion for a party to allow the candidacy regardless of compliance, is constitutional.
Teising v. State, No. 24S-CR-55, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 15, 2024).
The maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” does not relieve the State of its burden to prove criminal intent, even when the defendant bases their claimed lack of intent on a misunderstanding of the civil law.
State ex. rel. Allen v. Carroll Cir. Ct., No. 23S‐OR‐311, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
The trial court lacked the authority to remove counsel without considering other, less drastic options and weighing the prejudice to the defendant.