For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in claims alleging breach of implied warranty, a buyer need only show to the satisfaction of the factfinder that the seller had “a reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. The buyer can meet this burden of proof by showing that he explicitly asked the seller to cure (i.e., repair, replace, or refund) or that he notified the seller of the purported defect and the seller proposed no remedy in response.
Supreme
Kelly v. State, No. 25S-PC-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2025).
While the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies require appellate screening before filing a successive petition for post-conviction relief, those rules do not require appellate screening before amending a successive petition.
Isrig v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., No. 24S-CT-158, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 22, 2025).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied to premises liability cases involving fixtures where an invitee is injured on a landowner’s premises.
Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Saint, No. 25S-MI-101, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 23, 2025).
For purposes of the Access to Public Records Act, material must originate from and be communicated by employees of the same agency to qualify as “intra-agency.”
Nardi v. King, No. 25S-PL-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff “substantially” prevailed in his APRA suit by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record, even though he received only a portion of all requested records. A plaintiff who has substantially prevailed can recover attorney’s fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims if it is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim.