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.”
P. Mathias
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.
Davis v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc., No. 20A03-1710-CT-2435,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 13, 2018).
Injured worker was not a “user” or “consumer” entitled to relief under the Indiana Product Liability Act.
Wamsley v. Tree City Village, No. 16A01-1706-CT-1355__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).
Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).