The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.
Supreme
Town of Linden v. Birge, No. 22S-PL-352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 7, 2023).
Flooding issues on caused by Town’s drainage plan are properly analyzed as a per se permanent taking and that case is remanded for the trial court to decide (1) whether the flooding here amounted to a substantial permanent physical invasion of the Property (including that portion lying within the drainage easement), and (2) for a final determination of damages.
Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).
When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.
Means v. State, No. 23S-CR-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
After the Court of Appeals accepts a discretionary interlocutory appeal, it may later dismiss the appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds, although its general reluctance to do so is appropriate. In addition, orders in limine are eligible for discretionary interlocutory review.
Doroszko v. State, No. 23S-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
Pursuant to TR 47(D), trial courts must permit parties or their counsel to question prospective jurors directly. The trial court may also examine the jurors. As part of its own examination, the court may, but does not have to, include questions the parties submit to the court in writing. If the court elects to examine the prospective jurors, it is within its discretion to decide whether its examination or the parties’ examination will occur first, but whenever the trial court examines the prospective jurors, it must allow the parties an opportunity to supplement the court’s inquiry by posing their own additional questions directly to the prospective jurors.