The anti-discrimination provision in the expungement act does not displace the statutory requirement when relief must be sought through the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.
G. Slaughter
AMW Investments, Inc. v. Town of Clarksville, No. 24S-PL-183, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 4, 2024).
Appealing a monetary discovery sanction also puts the underlying discovery order before the appellate court. Late objections to discovery are presumptively waived, but trial courts may exercise their discretion and excuse any waiver.
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, No. 24S-PL-40, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2024).
Forum selection clause cannot be enforced against non-contracting employees for claims against them arising from the contract.
Dolsen v. VeoRide, Inc., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2024).
To determine premises-liability for first-responding firefighters, first the Court should determine whether the plaintiff seeks to recover for the negligence that caused the emergency. If so, the first-responder’s rule bars the plaintiff’s claim. If not, then the Court should treat the firefighter as a licensee.
Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).
When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.