When a person petitions for the return of guns confiscated under the Jake Laird “red flag” Law for being a dangerous person, the State must present evidence that the person is dangerous now and, in the future, not that he was dangerous in the past.
M. Robb
Rose v. Martin’s Super Markets LLC, No. 18A-CT-1654, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2019).
Grocery store had no duty to customer prior to shooting, because it was not reasonably foreseeable for a grocery store to expect death by gunfire to befall a customer. Because the grocery store did not have knowledge of customer’s injury in time to offer her assistance, the store also had no duty to protect her from exacerbation of her injuries.
In re Ma.H, No. 18A-JT-1296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2019).
The requirement that Father admit molesting child to complete sex offender treatment violates Father’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; the trial court’s reliance on his refusal to so admit as proof that his parental rights should be terminated violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
Linares v. El Tacarajo, No. 18A-CT-276, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 8, 2019).
Using the Goodwin foreseeability analysis, an automobile salvage business did not have a duty to a patron of a mobile food truck serving food in its parking lot that exploded and caused injury to the patron.
Campbell v. Campbell, 18A-DR-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2019).
Trial court properly denied spousal maintenance because it determined that spouse that receives SSD benefits is not incapacitated to the extent that her ability to support herself is materially affected.