Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.
Civil
Richardson v. Richardson, No. 49A02-1410-DR-702, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).
The trial court had the authority to order a visitation order with stepfather, even though a different court had entered an order adjudicating support, custody and parenting time with the biological father.
Levy v. Jackson, No. 29A02-1407-CT-482, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2015).
Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.
In re I.B., No. 82S05-1502-AD-63, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 11, 2015).
“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”
Stafford v. Szymanowski, No. 89S01-1502-CT-64, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
The patient’s designated expert medical testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding doctor’s negligence.