An arrest warrant confers limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within; when police knew only the building in which the suspect lived, an anonymous bystander’s direction to a specific apartment was not sufficiently reliable to confer the required “reason to believe” for a forced entry.
R. Shepard
Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, No. 69S01-0905-CV-233, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 25, 2010)
A trial court has no authority to grant an extension of time to file the record in a petition for review of an administrative agency action under the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act if the record is not filed within the required statutory period or any authorized extension of this period.
Dowell v. State, No. 32S01–1003–PC–136, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 10, 2010)
Expressly adopts “prison mailbox rule” for filings under the appellate rules, but as filing of motion to correct error is subject to the Trial Rules the prisoner’s use of regular mail, rather than registered or certified mail, meant the motion was not filed until received by clerk and here was untimely.
Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49S02-0906-CV-00275, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 4, 2010)
Evidence Rule 803(4)’s hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment applies only to patients’ statements, not to statements of physicians concerning diagnosis or treatment. Holds that recovery of medical expenses requires that “the treatment claimed must be necessary in the sense that it proximately resulted from the wrongful conduct,” and also holds that the “scope of liability” component of proximate cause allows recovery for “necessary” medical treatment even when the result of misdiagnosis or negligent administration.
Johnson v. Johnson, No. 46S04-0907-CV-00346, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2010)
Dissolution agreement for husband to pay wife for her interest in the family farm, although silent on the subject, must have contemplated the regular annual renewal of the farm’s debt to finance its operations, but not the higher level of debt necessary to finance husband’s obligations to wife; trial court erred in modifying wife’s lien to allow husband to finance his divorce obligations.