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.
T. Crone
Decker v. Star Financial Group, Inc., No. 21A-PL-2191, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 20, 2022).
Arbitration provision at the bottom of a monthly bank statement was not reasonable notice of the provision as required by the terms and conditions of the bank account.
Posso v. State, No. 21A-CR-369, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2021).
A defendant is entitled to be advised of his Indiana constitutional right to the presence and advice of counsel before making the decision to consent to a search of a motel room, vehicle, and/or cell phone.
In re Change of Name and Gender of H.S., No. 21A-MI-884, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2021).
When a parent seeks a change of gender marker for a child, it must be accompanied by a best interests analysis and include more than conclusory testimony.
State v. Riggs, 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2021).
Any substantive provisions of the Child Deposition Statute, Ind. Code § 35-40-5-11.5, do not exempt the procedural provisions of the Statute from the general rule that the Indiana Trial Rules supersede conflicting procedural statutes. The procedural provisions of the Child Deposition Statute conflict with the trial rules, and therefore the procedural provisions are unenforceable.