Role of defendant’s alleged mental illness in double-murder was not so “exceptional and extraordinary” as to warrant appellate revision of LWOP sentence. Jury’s weighing of LWOP aggravators and mitigators is not subject to appellate review.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

When the defendant moves for summary judgment and the plaintiff is the non-moving party, the defendant has no duty to raise all its affirmative defenses.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

State did not violate Due Process by knowingly relying on perjured testimony, nor was testimony “incredibly dubious”; co-defendant’s trial testimony was not necessarily false nor internally contradictory, but merely inconsistent with factual basis for her guilty plea in prior proceedings.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

“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).”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion