Evidence that habitual traffic offender’s “Zuma” was travelling at 43 miles per hour sufficed to prove that it had a “maximum design speed” of more than 25 miles per hour and that accordingly it was not a “motorized bicycle” which defendant could operate while suspended.
Supreme
Clark v. Clark, No. 01S02-1112-CT-690, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., July 23, 2012).
The Indiana Guest Statute does not preclude a passenger from bringing a negligence action against a driver “as to injuries inflicted when such a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver’s attempt to park.”
Hollin v. State, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., July 12, 2012).
Affirms trial court holding that state’s failure to disclose favorable plea bargain given to accomplice who testified against defendant violated the Brady v. Maryland obligation to disclose favorable evidence.
Hirsch v. Oliver, No. 29S02-1109-DR-530, ___N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 29, 2012).
Under Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6(a)(3), if a trial court determines there is no longer an obligation of the parent to support the child, emancipation has necessarily occurred.
Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., No. 49S05-1111-CV-672, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 25, 2012).
Defined “improvement to real property” as used in Indiana Code 32-30-1-5 as “(1) an addition to or betterment of real property; (2) that is permanent; (3) that enhances the real property’s capital value; (4) that involves the expenditure of labor or money; (5) that is designed to make the property more useful or valuable; and (6) that is not an ordinary repair.”