Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.
M. May
Beachey v. State, No. 20A-CR-2121, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2021).
The Indiana Supreme Court explicitly established that, beginning on January 1, 2020, “the court should utilize the results of an evidence-based risk assessment approved by the Indiana Office of Court Services, and such other information as the court finds relevant.” Crim. R. 26(B). This requirement cannot be circumvented by simply choosing not to order the preparation of an evidence-based risk assessment.
Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial, No. 20A-CT-2382, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2021).
A proposed complaint before the IDOI is not void ab initio because it was filed in the name of a deceased individual as administrator of the estate of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice.
Wilder v. DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc., No. 20A-PL-1100__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, Feb. 16, 2021).
While a trial court can take judicial notice of reasonable attorney’s fees in routine cases involving relatively small amounts, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded appellate attorney’s fees in a reduced hourly amount with no evidence to support the reduced rate.
Brown v. State, 19A-MI-1999, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2021).
Amendment of Ind. Code § 35-33-5-7 to include subsection (f) was a remedial measure intended to clarify that a search warrant is considered “executed” for purposes of Ind. Code § 35-33-5-7 when officers seize the items described in the search warrant.