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.”
E. Najam
T.B. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 79A04-1110-JT-594, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2012).
The Court declined to adopt a policy that prohibits the involuntary termination of parental rights for all mentally retarded parents.
Walters v. Austin, No. 20A04-1106-CT-342,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 18, 2012).
The amended motion to correct error was a repetitive motion and so the filing of the amended motion did not change the date for filing the notice of appeal.
McCarter v. State, No. 26A04-1106-CR-409, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2012).
Evidence defendant grabbed victim’s buttocks was insufficient to prove the sexual battery element that victim was compelled by force or threat of force to submit to the battery.
Jackson v. Holiness, No. 02A03-1103-RS-9, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 8, 2012).
Trial court did not err in dismissing mother’s petition to modify child support, because she is not a non-resident petitioner as required by Ind. Code 31-18-6-11 and so the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.