“Where Trial Rule 15(C) addresses the relation back of amendments ‘changing the party against whom a claim is asserted,’ it requires that the party to be brought in by amendment ‘knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.’ T.R. 15(C) (emphasis added). In contrast, Trial Rule 17(C) applies where ‘the name or existence of a person is unknown.’ T.R. 17(F).”
Supreme
Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Tucker, No. 22S01-1506-PL-401, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
Homeowners met criteria for adverse possession of disputed property.
Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1312-LW-512, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 17, 2015).
LWOP sentencing order was deficient for failure to include judge’s personal statement that LWOP was the appropriate sentence.
State v. Vanderkolk, No. 79S04-1411-CR-718, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Probationers or community corrections participants may, pursuant to a valid search condition or advance consent, authorize warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion; but language of home detention participant’s conditions of participation authorized searches only with probable cause.
State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.