Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.
L. Rush
Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, No. 23S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 9, 2024).
Trial courts have no authority to redact or otherwise exclude the evidence a party submits to a medical review panel.
Smith v. State, No. 23S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2024).
When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.
Cooley v. Cooley, No. 23S-DN-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 20, 2024).
Trial courts have broad statutory authority to order a security or other guarantee, when necessary, to secure the division of property in a dissolution of marriage; the trial court properly required husband to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy on his retirement benefits.
WEOC, Inc. v. Niebauer, No. 23S-CT-184, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 12, 2024).
The Dram Shop Act modified common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol, but did not eliminate it.