Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly held that city ordinance was unreasonable and void because it threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on an energy company, which would in turn impact all of the energy company’s customers throughout Indiana.
M. Massa
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., No. 23S-CT-272, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 2, 2024).
Trial court properly dismissed a third-party spoliation claim when there was no special relationship between the parties to create a duty to preserve the evidence.
A.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2024).
Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.
Morales v. Rust, No. 23S-PL-371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2024).
The Affiliation Statute, the statute that contains objective criteria for determining eligibility to appear on the primary ballot of a major political party and discretion for a party to allow the candidacy regardless of compliance, is constitutional.
Korakis v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 23S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 25, 2024).
A medical expert does not need to expressly state the applicable standard of care in his affidavit, it can be inferred from substantively sufficient information.