The bank provided its customer with reasonable notice of its offer to amend its bank account terms, but the customer’s silence and inaction did not amount to acceptance of the amended terms.
M. Massa
Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC, No. 23S-TP-00090, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2023).
Tax sale notices sent by certified mail to homeowners satisfied due process and Indiana law; the question is not whether the homeowners actually received the notice, but whether the notices were sent “as one desirous of actually informing” the homeowners.
Miller v. Patel, No. 22S-CT-371, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).
Convictions entered after a guilty plea have the same preclusive effect in subsequent litigation as those entered after jury or court verdicts.
In re Adoption of S.L., No. 23S-AD-00158, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 20, 2023).
The court had no appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment; it neither disposed of all claims for all parties, nor stated there was no just reason for delay.
Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).
When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.