Trial court erred in ordering blanket suppression of all testimony from police officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with eavesdropping on defendant’s discussions with counsel. Officers’ misconduct was egregious, but blanket exclusion was too extreme and Court of Appeals was not willing to presume prejudice to defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Instead, trial court would need to make individualized determinations of prejudice at trial in light of each witness’s testimony on direct examination.
Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, No. 49A02-1410-CT-713, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 5, 2015).
The general rule that owners of domestic animals are liable only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities applies to all domestic animals – even pigs.
State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
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.
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.