Trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings; the litigant was judicially estopped from bringing the claims and lacked standing because of a pending bankruptcy,
C. Bradford
Newcomb, Jr. v. State, No. 22A-PC-318, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2022).
A miscarriage of justice, including when a person is convicted of an offense they did not commit, can be corrected within the confines of post-conviction relief.
A.W. v. State, No. 22A-JV-150, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2022).
The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in Wadle, that an offense is factually included when the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense. Here, juvenile’s adjudications for possession of a machine gun and dangerous possession of a firearm were factually included and thus, entry of judgment on both counts was a violation of double jeopardy.
Erie Ins. Exchange v. Craighead, No. 21A-CT-2871, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2022).
Medical payments coverage does not reduce an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage obligation.
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.