Equitable estoppel can prevent defendant from using the Indiana Tort Claims Act time limit as a defense.
M. Massa
Miller v. Dobbs, No. 15S05-1302-CT-91, __ N.E.2d __, (Ind., July 30, 2013).
Medical malpractice complaint was filed within the statute of limitations even though the filing and processing fees were not received until after the statute of limitations expired.
Fry v. State, No. 09S00-1205-CR-361, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jun. 25, 2013).
“We hold today that when a defendant charged with murder or treason seeks bail, the burden is on the State, if it seeks to deny bail, to show—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”
City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, No. 49S02-1201-CT-598, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 4, 2013).
When a claimant includes information in a tort claim notice beyond that required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act, that information does not restrict the scope of the claim.
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.