Dismissal was the appropriate remedy when plaintiff’s lawyer repeatedly ignored requests for discovery, and then when ordered to respond supplied false and misleading information making a full defense impossible.
Supreme
Dexter v. State, No. 79S05-1106-CR-367, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2012).
In an habitual offender proceeding, “an unsigned judgment is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of a prior conviction.”
Haag v. Castro, No. 29S04-1102-CT-118, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 10, 2012).
A local youth soccer team cannot recover under the state youth soccer governing association’s business auto-insurance policy for injuries sustained when the van in which they were riding was involved in an accident, because the van was not being used in the business of the association, a condition for coverage under the insurance policy at issue.
Ramsey v. Moore, No. 45S05-1105-CT-281, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2012).
Because the trial court’s order was not a final appealable judgment, the Indiana Supreme Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the trial court’s order denying medical malpractice defendants’ request for a preliminary determination and requesting dismissal due to the plaintiff’s dilatory conduct.
Renzulli v. State, No. 32S04-1102-CR-117, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 29,2011).
Circumstances sufficiently corroborated concerned citizen’s tip of a possibly intoxicated driver to support an investigative stop.