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.
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.