In a bench trial, a party arguing for a mitigation-of-damages jury instruction “need only point to some evidence in the record that when viewed most favorably [to the party] would suffice for a reasonable juror to decide the issue in the party’s favor.”
C. Goff
Blackford v. Welborn Clinic, No. 21S-CT-85, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 31, 2021).
The Indiana Business Trust Act’s limitation period is a statute of repose and fraudulent concealment may not extend the time in which to file a claim.
Berg v. Berg, No. 21S-DC-320, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2021).
Documents produced in anticipation of mediation fall under A.D.R.’s confidentiality requirement.
State v. Diego, 21S-CR-285, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2021).
Police may not interrogate a person in custody without proper Miranda warnings or else the State risks having those custodial statements suppressed in a criminal trial. However, not every station house interview implicates Miranda. Miranda warnings are only required when a person is in custody; when a person’s’ freedom of movement is curtailed to a level associated with formal arrest and when he or she is under the same inherently coercive pressures in the police station as those at issue in Miranda v. Arizona.
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.