County Sheriff Department “that neither owns, maintains, nor controls a county road” does not have a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions of that road.
Supreme
Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).
On rehearing, “we hold that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer,” and “[w]e also emphasize that this holding does not alter, indeed says nothing, about the statutory and constitutional boundaries of legal entry into the home or any other place.”
Turner v. State, No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 28, 2011).
Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b) permitted admission of “tool mark” expert’s “identification” opinion that marks on unfired cartridge found in defendant’s girlfriend’s home matched marks on fired cartridge casings found at murder scene, even though the firearm which might have made the “tool marks” was never found.
Avery v. Avery, No. No. 49S05-1102-PL-76, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).
“The Indiana Trial Rules apply to will contest actions, and the failure to file an answer or responsive pleading in accordance with Trial Rule 7 may result in a default judgment.”
Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 28S01-1102-CV-78, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Sept. 15, 2011)
“If equitable and legal causes of action or defenses are present in the same lawsuit, the court must examine several factors of each joined claim — its substance and character, the rights and interests involved, and the relief requested. After that examination, the trial court must decide whether core questions presented in any of the joined legal claims significantly overlap with the subject matter that invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court. If so, equity subsumes those particular legal claims to obtain more final and effectual relief for the parties despite the presence of peripheral questions of a legal nature. Conversely, the unrelated legal claims are entitled to a trial by jury.”