There are genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of a special relationship between an insurance agent and the insured.
L. Rush
State v. Cunningham, No. 19S05-1409-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2015).
Police validly required motorist to submit to a pat-down as a condition for allowing him to get out of his truck during a traffic stop, and the officer’s simple query about a pill bottle detected in the motorist’s pocket did not improperly extend the scope of the stop.
In re J.T.D., No. 45S03-1406-AD-387, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 4, 2014).
A Caseload Allocation Plan’s provisions establish only venue and not jurisdiction; they are binding on the court and litigants.
Buelna v. State, No. 20S04-1404-CR-243, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2014).
“We construe ‘adulterated’ methamphetamine as a final product, not the total weight of an intermediate mixture still undergoing reaction.”
Oswalt v. State, No. 35S02-1401-CR-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 22, 2014).
Parties satisfy “the exhaustion rule” required for “appellate review of for-cause challenges to prospective jurors” “the moment they use their final peremptory challenge” – regardless of whether the final peremptory is used to strike “a candidate they consider undesirable” or instead is used to cure the trial court’s refusal to strike an allegedy incompetent one for cause.” And parties who comply with the exhaustion rule and also show they were unable to remove any objectionable juror because they had no peremptories left may have appellate review of any denial of a motion to strike for cause, even if no challenged juror actually served on the jury.