“[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.
Woodson v. State, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop merely because individual stopped was in a drug “hot-zone.”
Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”
Smith v. Cain, No. 10–8145, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 20, 2012).
State’s failure to disclose to defense the sole eyewitness’s pre-trial statement to detective that he could not identify any of the gunmen, when eyewitness identified defendant at trial as the first gunman, violated the due process prosecution disclosure rule of Brady v. Maryland.