“[E]vidence of mailing on a particular date, even if it contradicts a postmark, is competent to prove filing on that date for purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act.”
C. Bradford
Bellamy v. State, No. 49A02-1011-CR-1214, __ N. E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2011).
When defendant had been warned he would be held in contempt if he failed to promptly appear for future scheduled proceedings, his appearance almost an hour late for his trial was properly punished summarily as direct criminal contempt.
Ault v. State, No. 49A04-1008-CR-492, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2011)
Defendant’s testimony is not necessary for establishing self-defense, but defendant’s subjective state of mind may be inferred from the circumstances to establish self-defense.
French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)
In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.
Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.