Purchaser’s reliance on assurances of seller and bank that seller had satisfied liens on sale property was unreasonable and would not avoid the liens; purchaser had to contact lienholder directly.
J. Baker
Capital Drywall Supply, Inc. v. Jai Jagdish, Inc., No. 71A03-1004-PL-189, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 29, 2010)
“[A] mechanic’s lien claimant does not have a right to rely on telephone hearsay to identify the property owner and does so at its own risk.”
Upshaw v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2010)
After defendant’s release on recognizance satisfied his initial C.R. 4(B) motion for speedy trial in 70 days, his “renewal” of his motion, after arrest on new charges and the revocation of his release on recognizance due to the new arrest, began a new 70 day period, not a resumption of the original 70 days.
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-0912-CR-591, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2010)
Prosecutor’s analogy to jig saw missing two pieces to demonstrate the difference between beyond all reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt did not require reversal.
Curtis v. State, No. 49A02-0911-CR-1106, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2010)
Where it is undisputed that defendant will never recover from his mental illness and will never become competent to stand trial, it was a violation of due process to deny his motion to dismiss the criminal charges pending against him.