Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case.
Civil
Bennett v. Richmond, No. 20S03-1105-CV-293, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2012).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case.
Ind. Dept. of Ins. v. Everhart, No. 84S01-1105-CV-28, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 20, 2012).
The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund was not entitled to a reduction in the award of damages to account for the chance that the plaintiff would have died even in the absence of the physician’s negligence, because of how the trial court’s particular findings of fact interact with the rules for calculating a set-off.
Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90A04-1101-PL-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 13, 2012).
“[J]udicial review of an administrative determination of just compensation should be limited to the consideration of whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding and order and whether the action constitutes an abuse of discretion, is arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of statutory authority as revealed by the uncontradicted facts.”
Whitaker v. Becker, No. 02S03-1201-CT-2, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 18, 2012).
Dismissal was the appropriate remedy when plaintiff’s lawyer repeatedly ignored requests for discovery, and then when ordered to respond supplied false and misleading information making a full defense impossible.