When a party raises a TR 50(A) argument in a Rule 59(J) motion to correct error, the trial court reviews the evidence as if it were considering a TR 50(A) motion raised before judgment at trial; de novo review is appropriate. When the evidence heard by the jury supports reasonable inferences that defendant was not contributorily negligent, the trial court properly did not disturb the jury verdict.
G. Slaughter
Kelly v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, No. 25S-CT-158, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 23, 2025).
The Legislature has not created a private right of action for individuals to seek damages stemming from inaccurate BMV recordkeeping.
South Bend Comm. School Corp. v. Grabowski, No. 24S-CT-395, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 24, 2025).
A Frampton claim, an exception to Indiana’s employment-at-will doctrine. requires the claimant to prove that her employer actually or constructively discharged her solely to deter her from seeking workers’ compensation benefits.
Peters v. Quakenbush, No. 25S-PL-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
If a person “is required to register as a sex or violent offender in any jurisdiction,” that person must “register for the period required by the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer.” I.C. § 11-8-8-19(f). This applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.
Diamond Quality, Inc. v. Dana Light Axle Products, LLC, No. 24S-CQ-265, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 24, 2025).
Absent a contractual or statutory duty, a property owner is always justified in excluding another from the owner’s premises.