Sperm Donor Agreements may be valid if they meet criteria beyond the traditional elements of a contract; a physician must be involved in the insemination and the written instrument memorializing the arrangement must be sufficiently thorough and formalized. When parties enter into a facially valid donor agreement contract, the party seeking to avoid the contract has the burden of proof on matters of avoidance.
E. Friedlander
Hunt Construction Group, Inc., v. Garrett, No. 49A02-1001-CT-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2010)
Construction manager’s contractual duties are interpreted to give it a duty for safety of contractor’s employees; argument manager had a “nondelegable” duty toward contractor employee is rejected.
Curtis v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)
“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”
Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)
Small claims proceeding supplemental order to pay $50 per month was based on a proper determination of ability to pay, but order for debtor to make five job applications per week was an abuse of discretion.
Branham v. Varble, No. 62A01-1004-SC-192, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)
Supreme court’s proceeding supplemental procedure for trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s entitlement to UCCC or resident-householder exemption does not require the trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s possible entitlement to other exemptions.