Trial court did not have the proof necessary to impose a special condition on an involuntary commitment to outpatient therapy when there was no reasonable relationship between the special condition and respondent’s treatment and safety or that of the general public.
E. Tavitas
AgReliant Genetics, LLC v. Gary Hamstra Farms, Inc., No. 22A-CC-1827, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2023).
Trial court properly considered the prior course of dealing between the parties in determining whether the plaintiffs established the elements of promissory estoppel.
Clark v. State, No. 22A-CR-2421, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 25, 2023).
In the entrapment context, apparent agency does not depend on the principal’s express or implied authorization for the agent to act on the principal’s behalf; rather, apparent agency exists when a principal’s manifestations induce a third party to reasonably believe there is a principal-agent relationship.
Crabtree v. State, No. 21A-CR-2752, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2022).
Terry-level reasonable suspicion is not an absolute necessity for a dog sniff of a hotel-room door. The degree of suspicion is just one factor to be considered under the general Litchfield balancing test.
A.R. v. State, No. 22A-JV-156, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2022).
While Ind. Code § 31-30-2-3, states that the trial court, on its own motion, may reinstate a jurisdiction over a juvenile after release from DOC, a motion by the prosecution is sufficient. Moreover, Ind. Code § 11-8-8-4.5, which subjects an offender who is at least 14 years age to sex offender registration, applies at the time of registration, not when the delinquent act was committed.