Defendant may not challenge a collateral consequence of an ex post facto statute barring him from school property through a post-conviction proceeding, but he may pursue his claim in a declaratory‐judgment action.
Supreme
Weida v. State, No. 79S02-1711-CR-00687, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 12, 2018).
The prior version of Sex Offender Special Condition 26, providing a ban on using the internet, is unreasonable since it does not reasonably relate to probationer’s rehabilitation and protecting the public.
Roumbos v. Vazanellis, No. 45S03-1710-CT-635,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 12, 2018).
In a legal malpractice case, defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff would not have succeeded in her underlying premises-liability claim; it is a material-factual dispute that the designated evidence establishes that various wires on a hospital-room floor and the risks they pose would be apparent to a reasonable person.
Care Group Heart Hospital, LLC v. Sawyer, No. 49S05-1710-PL-671,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 23, 2018).
The Court enforced the plain meaning of the contract; “terminated for any reason” means any termination, for any reason.
In re the Adoption of E.B.F., No. 18S-AD-167, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 23, 2018
Mother’s consent was necessary to grant the adoption because (1) although Mother failed to have significant communication with Child for a period of more than one year, her willingness to shield her son from the adverse effects of her addiction, coupled with her good-faith attempt at recovery and noticeable progress, constitute justifiable cause for her failure to communicate. (2) Father and Stepmother thwarted whatever occasional attempts Mother made to communicate with Child, in violation of the agreed-upon custody modification order.