The Trial Rules govern discovery and, as incorporated by Indiana’s Criminal Rules, apply to all criminal proceedings so far as they are not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court for the conduct of criminal proceedings.
T. Crone
Morgan v. Dickelman Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 22A-PL-892, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2022).
Summary judgment was appropriate for plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, and fraud against their insurance agency because plaintiffs did not review their easy-to-read, unambiguous insurance renewal certificates.
In re A.C., No. 22A-JC-49, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2022).
Transgender child’s continued removal is not contrary to the CHINS-6 statute and does not violate the parents’ constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of child or to their rights to the free exercise of religion. Parents have the right to exercise their religious beliefs, but they do not have the right to exercise them in a manner that causes physical or emotional harm to child. Trial court’s temporary restriction on the discussion of child’s transgender identity outside of family therapy does not violate the parents’ free speech rights.
Mellowitz v. Ball State University, No. 22A-PL-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2022).
Ind. Code § 34-12-5-7, which bars class actions against post-secondary educational institutions for claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19, impermissibly conflicts with T.R. 23 and so it is a nullity.
Armes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2022).
The emergency rule promulgated by the Indiana Board of Pharmacy (the Board) purporting to add MDMB to Schedule I, fails to provide adequate information for a person of ordinary intelligence to determine whether he or she is dealing a substance that contains MDMB, and therefore, it is unconstitutionally vague.