The trial court erred in dismissing alleged third-party beneficiaries’ complaint for failing to comply with T.R. 9.2(A) and attaching a written contract to their complaint; third-party beneficiary status is not solely dependent upon a written contract.
M. Robb
In re Paternity of J.W., No. 76A04-1610-JP-2476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2017).
Trial court infringed upon the custodial rights of parent by delegating decision-making as to child’s need for therapy to a service provider.
Daviess-Martin County Join Parks and Recreation Dept. v. Estate of Abel, No. 19A04-1607-CT-1563, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2017).
Using the Rogers/Goodwin analysis, looking at the “broad type of plaintiff” and “broad type of harm” the lake owner/operator had no duty to a swimmer who contracted a rare infection from the lake because a reasonable person would not recognize the duty and agree that one exists.
Jenner v. Bloomington Cellular Services, Inc., No. 53A05-1606-MI-1415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2017).
Tax sale purchasers must provide notice to any person with a substantial, publicly recorded interest even if their interest lies outside the chain of title. “Requiring a tax-sale purchaser to search outside the chain of title—even if it means searching thousands of records in the county recorder’s office—is one of the safeguards created by the statute.”
Taylor v. State, No. 32A05-1608-CR-1720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2017).
Evidence obtained via a valid search warrant is admissible even though the arresting officer only had an electronic copy at the time of the search.