Responding to the plaintiff’s demand was not the defendant’s only option to mitigate damages, but the trial court was within its discretion to reduce damages.
Supreme
Camoplast Crocker, LLC v. Magic Circle Corp., No. 29S02-1407-CT-476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 21, 2014).
Plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint was proper when it was filed before the two-year limitation period expired, even though the court granted the motion to amend after the limitation period expired.
In re K.W., No. 49S02-1407-JT-458., __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 10, 2014).
The trial court abused it discretion by proceeding with a hearing and terminating parental rights in the parent’s absence when the parent was in jail.
Berry v. State, No. 49S04-1406-CR-416, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2014).
“[W]hen a trial court accepts a plea agreement with an executed time cap, its discretion to impose further punitive conditions of probation does not extend beyond what the plea agreement specifies.”
Tin Thang v. State, No. 49S04-1402-CR-72, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2014).
Distinguishing caselaw holding that, for the OWI offense, endangerment cannot be inferred from intoxication alone, affirms public intoxication conviction on basis defendant’s presence while intoxicated with a car at a gas station supported an inference he operated the vehicle while intoxicated and thus committed the public intoxication element of endangering himself or others.