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.
Civil
Haag v. Castro, No. 29S04-1102-CT-118, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 10, 2012).
A local youth soccer team cannot recover under the state youth soccer governing association’s business auto-insurance policy for injuries sustained when the van in which they were riding was involved in an accident, because the van was not being used in the business of the association, a condition for coverage under the insurance policy at issue.
Ramsey v. Moore, No. 45S05-1105-CT-281, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2012).
Because the trial court’s order was not a final appealable judgment, the Indiana Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the trial court’s order denying medical malpractice defendants’ request for a preliminary determination and requesting dismissal due to the plaintiff’s dilatory conduct.
Estate of Latek, No. 64A05-1103-ES-112, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2012).
“[T]he effect of another state’s determination that a will is invalid has no effect on the validity of the will in Indiana as it pertains to the disposition of real property located in Indiana.”
State v. Economic Freedom Fund, No. 07S00-1008-MI-411, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2011).
The First Amendment claim against the Indiana Autodialer Law by an entity that uses an automated dialing device to deliver prerecorded political messages would likely fail; further, there is no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the entity’s claim that the Autodialer Law’s live-operator requirement materially burdens its right to engage in political speech in violation of the state constitution.