The best practices for conducting a summary proceeding, “would include establishing on the record: 1) affirmative agreement from the attorneys that proceedings will be conducted summarily, for those represented by counsel; 2) affirmative agreement by both clients or unrepresented litigants to summary proceedings; 3) opportunity for both parties to add any other relevant information regarding the issues in dispute before the summary proceeding is concluded or to affirm the arguments made by counsel; and 4) an advisement in advance of the hearing that either party is free to object to the form of the proceeding and request a full evidentiary hearing, upon which formal rules of evidence and procedure will be observed.”
Supreme
Wellpoint, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 49S05-1404-PL-244, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 22, 2015).
Plaintiff is entitled to insurance coverage, including coverage for defense costs, except for its settlement losses.
Myers v. State, No. 76S03-1407-CR-493, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2015).
Experts unanimously agreed defendant was legally insane, but other evidence in the record supported the jury’s conclusion that he was not; as it was not shown defendant was given Miranda rights, the State could use his post-arrest silence and request for an attorney as evidence of sanity without violating his due process rights.
Cohen & Malad, LLP v. Daly, No. 29S02-1504-PL-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 8, 2015).
“Absent agreement otherwise, ‘a lawyer retained under a contingent fee contract but discharged prior to the contingency is entitled to recover the value of services rendered if there is a subsequent settlement or award[,]’ and in that case, ‘the fee is to be measured by the proportion of the total fee equal to the contribution of the discharged lawyer’s efforts to the ultimate result[.]’”
Moore v. State, No. 71S00-1405-LW-361, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
The incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable in the present case because the factors [1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence] were not present.