Medical payments coverage does not reduce an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage obligation.
C. Bradford
State v. Lyons, No. 21A-CR-2187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2022).
Even in the criminal context, the purpose of Indiana’s discovery rules is to allow a liberal discovery procedure for the purpose of providing litigants with information essential to the litigation of all relevant issues, eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement. When a discovery rule is violated, a trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions, which may include exclusion of all evidence that might have flowed from the violation.
Bunch v. State, No. 21A-CR-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).
The process for having a federal right to possess firearms restored following a conviction of a crime of domestic violence is tied to the state procedure for having said right restore; that procedure in Indiana is conducted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7.
Higginson v. State, No. 21A-CR-1169, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 4, 2022).
To entirely forbid the use of effects-of-battery evidence, or psychological trauma, in self-defense cases that fall under Ind. Code § 35-41-3-11, would render the self-defense portion of the statute superfluous.
Gladstone v. West Bend Mutual Ins., Co, No. 20A-CT-1499, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 24, 2021).
Medical bills were properly admitted as relevant evidence in determining a plaintiff’s pain and suffering.