The elements of two statutes are “substantially similar” if they have common core characteristics that are largely, but not identically, alike in degree or extent.
R. Rucker
Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, No. 27S02-1510-CT-627, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
“In a negligence action, whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. And in those instances where foreseeability is an element of duty, this necessarily means the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law. “
Patchett v. Lee, Inc., No. 49S02-1610-PL-532, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2016).
“[T]he rationale of Stanley v. Walker applies equally to reimbursements by government payers… The reduced amount is thus a probative, relevant measure of the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s medical care that the factfinder should consider.”
Burnell v. State, No. 29S02-1512-CR-707, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 23, 2016).
A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs when the conduct of the motorist is such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in believing the motorist was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to submit to the test.
Jay Classroom Teachers Ass’n. v. Jay School Corp., No. 49S05-1603-PL-113, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 21, 2016).
Given the deferential standard of review for agency action, the court upheld the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board factfinder’s decision.