Trial court erred in substituting underinsured driver for insurance company as the sole named defendant in contract case seeking recovery of underinsured motorist benefits, where the insurance company did not attempt to step into the shoes of and defend the tortfeasor or to preserve a subrogation interest.
M.T. v. State, No. 49A04-0908-JV-484, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2010)
Due process will not permit revocation of juvenile probation when the State has presented no evidence of the alleged probation violations.
Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hosp., No. 70A01-0911-CV-553, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2010)
Where hospital employee forcibly catheterized plaintiff for a urine sample after an oral statement from the police that the sample was court ordered, plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated factual issues as to whether: (1) the sample was obtained pursuant to a written request, (2) the taking of the sample constituted reasonable force, and (3) forced catheterization constituted a “medically accepted manner” for obtaining a urine sample, all pursuant to Ind. Code § 9-30-6-6. Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, however, because plaintiff was not a “patient” of the defendants.
Whatley v. State, No. 49S02-0908-CR-379, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 8, 2010)
Church with an active youth program was a “youth program center” for purposes of drug offense enhancement.
Malenchik v. State, No. 79S02-0908-CR-365, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., 2010)
“[R]esults of LSI-R and SASSI offender assessment instruments are appropriate supplemental tools for judicial consideration at sentencing.”