A judge is not required to recuse because an attorney in the case is involved in the judge’s judicial campaign unless an objective person, knowledgeable of all the circumstances, would have a rational basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.
E. Brown
Watkins v. State, No. 82A01-1510-CR-1624, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2017).
Under the totality of the circumstances, the extent of law enforcement’s need for a “military-style assault” was low and the degree of intrusion was unreasonably high; the search violated defendant’s right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure.
Polet v. ESG Security, Inc., No. 49A02-1510-CT-1631, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2016).
Where foreseeability is an element of duty, the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law; stage collapse due to high wind is not foreseeable as a matter of law.
Yeager v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 22A04-1604-MF-727, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2016).
In a mortgage foreclosure, a trial court must hold a hearing or to otherwise obtain information to determine the amount of the defendant’s provisional monthly payment.
Johnson v. State, No. 28A05-1602-CR-309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2016).
rial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted serving the entirety of the remaining portion of his executed sentence in the DOC due to the level of his limited functioning and financial resources, his previous successful placement on work release, the nature of the violation, and the severity of the court’s sentence.