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.”
Heaton v. State, No. 48A02-1104-CR-404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2011).
In a probation revocation, the trial court must apply the preponderance standard in determining whether a new offense was committed; points out that a line of Court of Appeals decisions saying probable cause is the standard failed to note the 1983 statutory change requiring preponderance.
Renzulli v. State, No. 32S04-1102-CR-117, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 29,2011).
Circumstances sufficiently corroborated concerned citizen’s tip of a possibly intoxicated driver to support an investigative stop.
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.