Forfeiture of a vehicle worth four times the amount of the maximum fine of the crime was excessive.
P. Mathias
Sedam v. 2Jr Pizza Enterprises, No. 39A05-1602-CT-296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 27, 2016).
An employer’s admission that its employee committed the alleged negligent act within the course and scope of her employment does not preclude an action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.
Coleman v. State, 49A02-1511-CR-1999, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 21, 2016).
Trial court must hold an indigency hearing before imposing a public defender fee, probation fee, or drug and alcohol treatment fee.
State v. Pitchford, No. 49A04-1512-CR-2173, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2016).
Mathias, J. The State of Indiana appeals the order of the Marion Superior Court granting a motion filed by Dejon Pitchford (“Pitchford”) to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a warrantless strip search of Pitchford in jail. The State claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the search of Pitchford was impermissible […]
Hill v. Gephart, No. 49A02-1509-CT-1288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2016).
Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.