Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 615(c) is the proper vehicle to permit a parent-witness to remain in the courtroom despite a separation-of witnesses order, the exception is not automatic; child defendants must still affirmatively show their parent’s presence is “essential.”
L. Rush
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc., No. 20S-PL-00618, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).
Parties’ freedom to contract may permit “minority” and “marketability” discounts for valuing corporate shares even for shares in a closed-market transaction.
Doe v. Carmel Operator, LLC, No. 21S-CT-15, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2020).
Equitable estoppel can be applied only if three elements are shown: lack of knowledge, reliance, and prejudicial effect. The Court declines to adopt alternative theories for equitable estoppel.
Watson v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).
While Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to habitual-offender retrials, the constitutional right to a speedy trial does.
D.P. v. State, State v. N.B., No. 20S-JV-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Sep. 8, 2020).
A juvenile court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to waive an alleged delinquent offender into adult criminal court if the individual is no longer a “child.”