As a matter of law, service on out-of-state defendant at the home address provided to the police at the time of the time of the accident and service on the defendant company through the Indiana Secretary of State was consistent with due process and reasonably calculated to inform the defendants that an action had been instituted against them.
E. Najam
Montgomery v. State, No. 02A04-1511-CR-2013,__N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2016).
Placement on probation and placement in a community transition program are not one and the same, and the court’s consideration of those options is not mutually exclusive; therefore, the trial court’s revocation of probation was not barred by res judicata.
Harris v. State, No. 83A01-1509-CR-1311, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2016).
Defendant’s name appearing on NPLEx did not provide an independent basis of reasonable suspicion that would justify further investigation after a seat belt enforcement stop.
Schneider v. Paragon Realty, LLC, No. 32A01-1511-CT-1858, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2016).
Defendant property management company had no duty of care to plaintiff who was involved in a crash with a driver while both were intoxicated after leaving a bar managed by the company.
Roar v. State, No. 49A02-1506-CR-506 , ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 21, 2016).
Conditional threat to victim (that “if I came back on the property[] he’d kill me”) supported conviction for intimidation (disagreeing with C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. not sought and Causey v. State, 45 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. not sought).