Articles

BMV policy needed to prevent identity theft

The inconvenience of a few Hoosiers outweighs the very real threat of identity theft, so the trial court was correct in denying a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Motor Vehicle's verification of records using Social Security Administration data, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Read More

Court split on ineffective trial counsel

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed that an attorney was ineffective because the majority found the attorney told her client he "should" win the case whereas one judge pointed out in the record the attorney admitted to telling the client he "would" win.

Read More

Judges differ in non-compete agreement case

In a legal dispute regarding a non-compete agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether the agreement could be enforced if the former employee's clients voluntarily left and contacted him to continue to be their accountant.

Read More

High court reverses termination of mom’s rights

The majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices ruled in a parental termination case that the evidence presented didn't clearly show a mother's rights to her son should be terminated. One justice dissented because he believes an appellate court should defer to the lower court in assessing the facts of a case.

Read More

Judges differ on insurance coverage

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed about whether a school bus driver who also worked as an independent farmer over the summer should be covered by the school corporation's insurance following a car accident while hauling grain.

Read More

Court agrees on ID standard, split on ‘injury’

Requiring police identifications to be recorded isn't a standard the Indiana Court of Appeals is willing to adopt at the moment. A three-judge appellate panel agrees on that issue, but in a ruling today those judges disagree on a separate appeal claim about a victim's punch to the face. In Henry Lewis v. State,  No. […]

Read More

Justices disagree about jury instruction

The Indiana Supreme Court was split in its ruling that a trial court properly instructed a jury regarding a habitual offender finding, with the dissenters arguing the court's instruction was inadequate as compared to the defendant's proposed jury instruction.

Read More

Justices analyze occurrence-based limitations

Two Indiana Supreme Court justices dissented from the majority today in two medical malpractice suits because they believed the majority's reasoning behind the decisions that both plaintiffs' claims are time-barred would foster suspicion and doubt between health-care providers and their patients.

Read More