A traffic stop based on an “inactive” registration is not justified because the General Assembly has not made “inactive” registration an infraction.
M. Robb
Saucerman v. State, No. 22A-CR-501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2022).
A trial court’s failure to ensure that a probationer who admits to a probation violation has received the advisements as required under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) constitutes a fundamental violation of the probationer’s due process rights.
Tippecanoe School Corp. v. Reynolds, No. 21A-CT-1482, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).
Negligent supervision in sports is not a separate cause of action; an analysis of a coach’s individual actions related to supervising her athletes and the choices made are subsumed by a review of whether that coach was intentional or reckless in her conduct.
Chapman v. State, No. 21A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2022).
Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.
Ceres Solutions Coop., Inc. v. Estate of Bradley, No. 21A-CT-377, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2022).
For the bystander rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress, explosion and subsequent fire are not separate injury-producing events for purposes of the temporal factor. Also, the plaintiff did not need to see the body of his wife being removed from the exploded house when he possessed a reasonable degree of certainty that she had been in the house at the time of the explosion.