“ We reject the concept that a participant in a sporting event owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport but adopt instead the view that summary judgment is proper due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport and therefore reasonable as a matter of law.”
Tracy v. Morell, No. 59A01-1009-PL-488, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2011)
Sale of tractor with altered identification number was subject to rescission on grounds of mistake and public policy, and buyer was entitled to recovery of payments with interest.
Konopasek v. State, No. 25S03-1012-CR-669, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 5, 2011)
When defendant testified he forthrightly had reported the fight he had been in to his probation officer, conveying the impression he was honest with the officer and hence honest generally, the State was entitled to establish a motive to lie about self-defense in the fight by eliciting the fact the defendant was on probation for methamphetamine offenses and faced significant jail time if probation was revoked.
Lacey v. State, No. 02S05-1010-CR-601, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)
[T]he Indiana Constitution does not require prior judicial authorization for the execution of a warrant without knocking and announcing when justified by exigent circumstances known by police when the warrant was obtained,” although obtaining such prior judicial authorization is the better police practice.
Wilkins v. State, No. 02S03-1010-CR-604, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)
Police had sufficient reasons to execute search warrant without knocking and announcing, and in any event the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applied to decisions not to knock and announce.