R.R. v. State, No. 18S-JV-230, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 13, 2018).

A juvenile has a right to be present at a fact-finding hearing under Ind. Code 31-32-5-1, unless waived by counsel; waived by parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem; or waived by the child.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Gates v. O’Connor, No. 18A-CT-58, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2018).

Because the designated evidence negates the proximate cause element of the legal malpractice claim, the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Cox v. Evansville Police Dept., No. 18S-CT-447, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 13, 2018).

Cities may be liable under the respondeat superior scope-of-employment rule for sexual assaults by on-duty police officers, but the common-carrier exception does not apply.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Hummel v. State, No. 75A03-1710-PC-2449, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2018).

A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Schmitt v. State, No. 83A04-1711-CR-2720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2018

Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion