The grand jury statutory framework does not mandate that the State submit a matter for deliberation as to whether to issue an indictment. The State need not identify or name the target of the grand jury proceeding and identify the crime that the target was alleged to have committed unless the grand jury proceeds to deliberate on whether to issue an indictment.
P. Foley
NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC v. Bruski, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2024).
Trial court properly denied TR 12(B)(6) motion; the complaint encompasses viable claims premised on the failure to warn after potentially contributing to a hazard on the road, and the failure to comply with the statute requiring driver to turn on emergency flashers and place warning devices behind his vehicle.
Mishler v. Union-North United School Corp., No. 23A-MI-1019, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2024).
The Claims Against Public School Act (“CAPSA”) is not a pre-suit notice law parallel to the ITCA. A court is required to dismiss claims that fail to submit proper notice to the public school.
Wells v. Wells, No. 23A-DR-990, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 12, 2024).
Even though father agreed to pay for daughter’s college education in the marital settlement agreement, daughter could repudiate their relationship and relieve father of his duty to pay.
Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).
When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.