Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over an attorney that never practiced law in Indiana and did not seek business from Indiana residents – she had no minimum contacts within or substantial connection to Indiana.
L. Rush
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Claybridge Homeowners Assoc., Inc., No. 29S02-1504-MF-188, ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2015).
Motion to Intervene was properly denied because the party had constructive notice of foreclosure by way of a valid lis pendens notice.
In Re Visitation of L-A.D.W., No. 82S01-1507-DR-452, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 30, 2015).
“Given the uniqueness that pervades different family units, strict standards on the amount of permissible visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act would be difficult to craft. As such, trial courts should be able to consider the various circumstances presented in each individual case to determine what is in the child’s best interest.”
Satterfield v. State, No. 63S00-1401-LW-306, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 26, 2015).
Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting officer’s lay-witness testimony that an allegedly mentally ill defendant was “evasive” during police questioning.
In re I.B., No. 82S05-1502-AD-63, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 11, 2015).
“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”