The plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer to seize an object without a warrant if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position from which to view the object, (2) the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
AgReliant Genetics, LLC v. Gary Hamstra Farms, Inc., No. 22A-CC-1827, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2023).
Trial court properly considered the prior course of dealing between the parties in determining whether the plaintiffs established the elements of promissory estoppel.
Red Lobster Restaurants LLC v. Progressive Flooring Svcs., Inc., No. 22A-CT-2221, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2023).
Because plaintiff sustained a direct injury, plaintiff had standing to sue in her own name when she had a bankruptcy pending.
Kansal v. Krieter, 22A-CT-2646, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 10, 2023).
Sexual misconduct claims against healthcare providers are not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, but in a case where the doctor and the patient agree as to the touching that occurred but disagree as to the purpose of the touching, application of the Medical Malpractice Act and presentation to a medical-review panel might be appropriate.
State v. Lyons, No. 23S-CR-163, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2023).
Before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice, or that the sanctioned party’s culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.