The trial court has inherent power to reconsider its appointment of a special administrator.
P. Mathias
Henderson v. Kleinman, No. 84A01-1710-CT-2566,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2018).
There is no statutory duty for a doctor to maintain adequate records; the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of doctor when “lack of documentation makes it impossible for the panel to decide whether the evidence supports or does not support a conclusion that the Defendant failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care in his treatment of the Plaintiff.”
State v. Neff, No. 18A02-1708-IF-1933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2018).
An officeholder need not abandon each and every statutory duty before removal from office may be warranted. “[F]ailure, over a period of years, to perform a critical, official and mandatory duty for a clerk-treasurer falls squarely within the confines of Article VI Sections 7 and 8 of the Indiana Constitution and our legislature’s response via the Removal Statute.”
Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 55A05-1709-CT-2168, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 27, 2018).
A component manufacturer is not immune from liability under the Indiana Product Liability Act; component manufacturer cannot automatically transfer all responsibility to the final manufacturer.
McCarty v. State, No. 84A04-1707-CR-1599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 20, 2018).
When placing a person on probation, the trial court must provide clear and specific written terms, including each condition of probation.