Hutchison v. Trilogy Health Services, LLC, No. 30A01-1307-SC-316, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2014).

When the daughter agreed “to pay the facility the full amount of the resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses,” in an agreement with a nursing home for her mother, and there was no evidence presented that daughter ever had access to or control of mother’s income or resources from which to make payment to the nursing home, the daughter was not liable for the nursing home costs.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Wood v. State, No. 53A05-1208-CR-423 , __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2013).

Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one year period did not include the time required for the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a special judge following withdrawal of a case from the trial judge pursuant to Criminal Rule 15 and Trial Rule 53.1. Affirms conviction for violating IC 14-15-4-1 on duties of a boat operator after a collision, but observes the “problematic” statute “permits no consideration of what is reasonable in any given emergency situation; nor does it permit citizens to engage in any balancing of considerations that arise in typical emergencies and are likely required by other statutes.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Boyd v. WHTIV, Inc., No. 49A05-1303-PL-107, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 5, 2013).

The three-day extension of time provided by Trial Rule 6(E) applies to summary judgment proceedings.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sugg v. State, No. 31A05-1208-CR-397, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2013).

Applies, as a matter of first impression in Indiana, U.S. Supreme Court’s McArthur decision that “a police officer’s refusal to allow a defendant to enter his or her residence without a police officer until a search warrant has been obtained is a reasonable seizure that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

J.R. v. State, No. 49A05-1204-JV-175, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 15, 2013).

Theft and auto theft are distinct offenses defined in different statutes, so that the “single larceny” rule does not prohibit convictions for both when the defendant simultaneously takes an automobile and other items of property.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion