Because the applicable Indiana statute does not impose the requirement of a pre-placement registry check, and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that adoption agency had any duties in excess of its statutory obligations, summary judgment for the adoption agency was properly granted.
M. Massa
Pierce v. State, No. 78S05-1407-CR-460, __ N.E.3d__ (Ind., May 12, 2015).
Because defendant grandfather’s molestations of his granddaughters were sufficiently “connected together” under the joinder statute, he had no right to have the molestation charges severed for trial on the basis they were joined only because they were “of the same or similar character.”
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Brown, No. 49S02-1504-CT-225, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 24, 2015).
The trial court reasonably concluded that Indiana was the appropriate forum for litigation brought by out-of-state plaintiffs against an in-state manufacturer.
McCowan v. State, No. 64S03-1408-Cr-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 25, 2015).
“[I]t is the absolute right of every criminal defendant to receive the following jury instruction upon request: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’”
Sargent v. State, No. 49D07-1111-MI-44802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
Reverses forfeiture of vehicle on basis that employee detained in her workplace while trying to illegally take employer’s property was not in possession, constructive or otherwise, of her automobile parked in the lot at the place of employment.