Trial court properly granted a T.R. 60(B)(7) motion within a reasonable time, even though it was over 25 years since the judgment was entered.
N. Vaidik
State v. Myers, No. 69A01-1708-CR-1805, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 24, 2018).
A defendant must object to a trial date set beyond the one-year guarantee in Criminal Rule 4(C) in time to permit the trial court to reset the trial for a date within the proper period.
Stachowski v. Estate of Radman, No. 71A05-1708-CT-1776, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2018).
Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to satisfy the duty element of a negligence claim.
CTB, Inc. v. Tunis, No. 17A-CT-3066, No. 49A02-1704-CT-776,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
A corporation’s “principal office,” for purposes of Trial Rule 75(A)(4), is its “registered office” under Indiana’s corporation law.
McCoy v. State, No. 10A05-1703-CR-681, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).
Trial court at sentencing may designate a defendant as a credit restricted felon only if that person has been convicted of one or more of serious sex-related crimes that allow for such designation.