Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.
Supreme
In re I.B., No. 82S05-1502-AD-63, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 11, 2015).
“Under the circumstances of this case, Indiana Code section 31-19-11-1(c) regrettably bars an adoption that, to all appearances, would otherwise be in I.B. and W.B.’s best interests. But that does not make the statute unconstitutional as applied, because its prohibitions are rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose and do not discriminate against a suspect class. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment on both adoption petitions and remand…”
Griffith v. State, No. 48S02-1501-CR-10, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may be admitted before or after a witness is given “opportunity to explain or deny” the statement as the Rule requires, but confronting the witness first remains the “preferred method.”
Stafford v. Szymanowski, No. 89S01-1502-CT-64, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 2, 2015).
The patient’s designated expert medical testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding doctor’s negligence.
Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc., No. 71S03-1506-CT-350, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2015).
Because the applicable Indiana statute does not impose the requirement of a pre-placement registry check, and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that adoption agency had any duties in excess of its statutory obligations, summary judgment for the adoption agency was properly granted.