The Comparative Fault Act does not require that a jury allocate some fault to every actor who proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, but permits the allocation of any percentage or no percentage of fault to a party or nonparty who caused or contributed to cause the injury.
N. Vaidik
Waters v. State, No. 06A05-1604-CR-863, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2016).
Trial court should impose a narrower internet restriction that is more in line defendant’s crime rather than a complete internet ban.
Sheetz v. Sheetz, No. 01A05-1601-DR-80, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2016).
Husband is equitably estopped from rebutting the presumption that he is child’s biological father because he told his wife that he would raise the child as his own, prohibited her from telling the child’s biological father that she was pregnant and also instructed her not to seek support from the biological father or to file a paternity action.
Williams v. State, 82A04-1602-CR-295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2016).
State did not properly authenticate evidence to establish a chain of custody for blood sample that tested positive for meth.
State v. Summers, No. 09A02-1604-MI-933, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2016).
Applying the intent-effects test, no ex post facto violation occurred when defendant committed the underlying offense in Illinois before Indiana’s definition of sex offender had been amended to include an obligation to register as a sex offender.