Trial court’s reference in the presence of the jury to witnesses as “experts” was error but not reversible.
P. Mathias
In re Custody of J.V., No. 27A02-0903-JV-232, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2009)
Although evidence supports trial court’s determination that grandmother was de facto custodian, trial court was also required to make findings regarding its determination to award custody to grandmother.
Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49A02-0802-CV-165, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2009)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit defendant’s expert’s testimony that challenged the specific course of treatment chosen by plaintiff’s medical care providers to treat the injuries caused by defendant’s negligence.
Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, No. 69A01-0807-CV-358, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2009)
Because plaintiff did not timely file the agency record or seek an additional extension of time in which to do so, its petition for judifical review of a final agency action was “subject to dismissal” under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act; the trial court, however, had discretion to find that a petition “subject to dismissal” should not, upon a proper showing, be dismissed.