The three-day extension of time provided by Trial Rule 6(E) applies to summary judgment proceedings.
J. Kirsch
Sugg v. State, No. 31A05-1208-CR-397, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2013).
Applies, as a matter of first impression in Indiana, U.S. Supreme Court’s McArthur decision that “a police officer’s refusal to allow a defendant to enter his or her residence without a police officer until a search warrant has been obtained is a reasonable seizure that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
J.R. v. State, No. 49A05-1204-JV-175, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 15, 2013).
Theft and auto theft are distinct offenses defined in different statutes, so that the “single larceny” rule does not prohibit convictions for both when the defendant simultaneously takes an automobile and other items of property.
Kirk v. State, No. 49A02-1110-CR-979, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2012).
Father did not have standing to object to admission of his stepson’s police statement on the basis that the officers had not followed the juvenile waiver of rights statute before questioning the stepson. Indiana Constitution’s Art. 1, § 11 search provision was violated when police officer read text messages on defendant’s cellphone at the time the officer seized the phone in a search incident to arrest.
Miller v. Dobbs, No. 15A05-1108-CT-431, (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2012).
If a proposed medical malpractice complaint is filed before the Indiana Department of Insurance without filing fees, it can be treated as unfiled until the fees are paid, or it can be treated as filed and a show cause order can be issued to the plaintiffs that they must pay the fee “in short order.”