Trial Rule 26(B)(3) provides adequate guidance for the trial court to determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a police report is protectible work product; overruling State ex rel. Keaton v. Cir. Ct. of Rush Cnty., 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985).
S. David
Ebert v. Illinois Casualty Co., No. 22S-PL-8, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 16, 2022).
Adopts the efficient and predominant cause analysis in determining whether allegations are excluded under an insurance policy.
Abbott v. State, No. 21S-PL-347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 29, 2022).
David, J. In Indiana, civil forfeiture actions typically proceed under one of two statutes: the general forfeiture statute or the racketeering forfeiture statute. Today, we consider whether the racketeering forfeiture statute permits a court to release, to the defendant, funds seized in a forfeiture action so the defendant can hire counsel in that same action. […]
Conley v. State, No. 21S-PC-256, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 23, 2022).
Seventeen-year-old petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to present evidence of defendant’s age and juvenile brain development.
Arrendale v. American Imaging & MRI, LLC, No. 21S-CT-370, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 24, 2022).
Non-hospital medical entities that provide patients with health care may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor through apparent or ostensible agency.