Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Appeals
Cowans v. State, No. __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016). __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 27, 2016).
When being pulled over by the police, a driver does not have full discretion to choose to stop anywhere, but with “adequate justification” might have some discretion to choose the location of a stop. Whether the driver exercises limited discretion in choosing a place to stop should be a question of fact for the jury.
Taylor-Bey v. State, No. 49A05-1503-CR-123, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, April 28, 2016).
Trial court had jurisdiction over a “Moorish American National Sovereign.”
Stewart v. Alunday, No. 16A04-1507-CT-760, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, April 28, 2016).
Judicial admissions are conclusive and binding on the trier of fact.
Love v. State, No. 20A05-1509-CR-1327, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 20, 2016).
Trial court should have dismissed, rather than denied, defendant’s habeas petition that was in substance an unauthorized successive PCR.