Arrest for resisting law enforcement violated defendant’s well-established right to walk away; bare report of a “disturbance” did not give probable cause for arrest, nor did record support claim that she was stopped to be cited for jaywalking. Subsequent search incident to arrest therefore violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
J. Baker
Harbert v. State, No. 79A02-1412-CR-874, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 4, 2016).
Double-jeopardy protections did not entitle co-defendants to dismissal of charges after State’s witness violated motion in limine; court refused to adopt more liberal State-law standard for such claims.
Defendant was not entitled to relief from judgment based on “newly discovered evidence”; he did not have creditable evidence on hand, but merely wanted to use so-called “evidence” of subsequent news stories as excuse for further discovery in hopes of obtaining exonerating evidence.
Collip v. Ratts, No. 49A05-1501-CT-1, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2015).
Doctors have a duty of reasonable care to a nurse practitioner’s patients in fulfilling the doctor’s obligations under a collaborative practice agreement between the doctor and the nurse practitioner.
Storch v. Provision Living, LLC, No. 49A02-1505-CT-352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2015).
Estate is entitled to an award of attorney fees for a tort claim pursuant to a contract awarding the prevailing party attorney fees for “any controversy, claim, or dispute between the parties hereto, arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof.”
Lovett v. State, No. 20A04-1506-MI-591, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).
Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act did not violate ex post facto clause of the Indiana Constitution as applied to defendant. SORA did not exist at the time of defendant’s 1991 conviction in Washington, but Washington law imposed similar registration requirements; thus, applying SORA after defendant moved here in 2003 imposed no new punishment.