The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.
E. Najam
Delagrange v. State, No. 49A04-1203-CR-144, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2013).
Reverses child exploitation convictions in part because “[t]he State presented no evidence the victims exhibited their genitals [footnote omitted] or intended to satisfy anyone’s sexual desire.”
White v. State, No. 90A04-1111-CR-621, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21,2012),
Statements of murder victim were properly admitted under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5), the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception.
Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-1110-CT-948, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 3, 2012).
Defendant did not commit misconduct under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) when it did not supplement prior deposition testimony of a nonparty.
Jent v. Fort Wayne Police Dept., No. 02A03-1108-MI-388, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2012).
The “reasonable particularity” requirement under the Access to Public Records Act “enables the subpoenaed party to identify what is sought and enables the trial court to determine whether there has been sufficient compliance with the request.”