Venue statute, Ind. Code § 23-0.5-4-12, conflicts with Trial Rule 75, so the statute is void.
R. Altice
Tunstall v. Manning, No. 49A04-1711-CT-2572, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2018).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s expert witness about his disciplinary history with the Medical Licensing Board.
Hamilton v. Steak’n Shake Operations, Inc., No. 49A02-1704-CT-776,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 7, 2018).
Using the Goodwin/Rogers framework, when the broad type of plaintiff is a restaurant patron who has been subjected to escalating threats and taunts and the broad type of harm is injury resulting after the encounter culminated in physical violence, the defendant restaurant had a duty to take reasonable steps to provide for patron safety once the raucous behavior came to its attention.
Coulibaly v. Stevance, No. 49A02-1702-DR-235, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2017).
Trial court properly enforced a court’s order from the country of Mali under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) as codified in Indiana; Malian order was not the product of laws that violate fundamental human rights.
West v. State, No. 02A04-1704-CR-783__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2017).
A police order to exit the home was not the same as an order to stop, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for resisting law enforcement.