“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…”
L. Rush
Young v. State, No. 49S02-1505-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 14, 2015).
“[U]nder the unusual operative and procedural facts of this case—the actual shooter remaining unidentified, the resulting ambiguity as to whether these Defendants intended to carry out a shooting, the State’s choice to rely on the shooting alone in the charging instruments and at trial, and the trial court’s unambiguous finding of reasonable doubt on that particular theory—we hold Defendants lacked fair notice of the [murder by beating] charge of which they were ultimately convicted, which under these circumstances establishes fundamental error.”
In re M.K., No. 49S02-1505-JC-260, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 12, 2015).
“Because the trial court’s remarks and conduct, in their cumulative effect, breached the court’s duty of impartiality and amounted to coercion of Father, we reverse the CHINS adjudication.”
Bd. of Commissioners of the County of Jefferson v. Teton Corp., No. 72S04-1410-CT-642, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 13, 2015).
Adopts the “any insurance” approach to the AIA waiver—“that as long as a property owner’s damages are covered by any property insurance policy used to insure construction-related damages (i.e., the work), the waiver applies to all damages”
In re Howell, No. 94S00-1405-CQ-321, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 20, 2015).
Life insurance bankruptcy exemptions apply to non-dependent spouses and children.