Defendant is not deprived of the benefit of hindsight when it reveals their conduct was necessary in self-defense, even though that necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment
D. Molter
Brown v. State, No. 24S-CR-288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2025).
Even if the recent amendments to Ind. Code 31-30-1-4(d) and 31-37-1-2 (the juvenile jurisdiction statutes), are remedial, the General Assembly did not intend to apply them retroactively to pending cases.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).
The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.
Ind. Dep’t of Ins. v. Doe, No. 23S-CT-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 23, 2024).
Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can challenge whether a claim falls within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) after a plaintiff concludes a settlement with a health care provider. A negligent-credentialing claim falls within the MMA only if the credentialed physician commits an act of medical malpractice. Claims premised on sexual assault by a physician during an authorized medical examination can fall within the MMA if the alleged misconduct stems from an inseparable part of the health care being rendered
Wohlt v. Wohlt, No. 24S-DR-385, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2024).
Property settlement agreement had no ambiguity when it used the word “all” to describe division of assets; both forgotten and remembered assets were included in that description so that the property division would be final.