Indemnity language on back of vendor’s invoice could not be applied retroactively to liabilities predating the invoice; retroactive effect was not “clearly and unequivocally” expressed in invoice language, and could not be inferred from parties’ course of dealing.
L. Rush
Gertiser v. Stokes, No. 29S02-1511-DR-643, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 10, 2015).
Revoking spousal maintenance requires proof “not merely that the maintenance award had become unreasonably excessive, but its very existence had become unreasonable.”
Lee v. State, No. 49S02-1511-CR-638, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Nov. 5, 2015).
Charging information for conspiracy to commit murder by shooting the victim did not give defendant fair notice of lesser-included battery offenses based on beating the victim.
Williams v. State, No. 48S05-1507-CR-424, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Oct. 26, 2015).
Officer’s testimony that “there’s zero doubt in my mind that this was a transaction for cocaine” was an opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt in violation of Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b), but was harmless error.
Clifton v. McCammack, No. 49S02-1504-CT-228, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 21, 2015).
Father of victim of an accident cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, because none of the three circumstantial factors were met; the claimant must demonstrate that the scene viewed was essentially as it was at the time of the incident, that the victim was in essentially the same condition as immediately following the incident, and that the claimant was not informed of the incident before coming upon the scene.