Davis v. Shelter Ins. Companies, No. 02A05-1105-CT-256, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2011).

Adopts the following test to determine the availability of equitable estoppel as an affirmative defense against statute of limitations in insurance actions: “The first part of the test, drawing on the national case law, is to determine whether the insurer has engaged in any of the following: (1) a promise to settle; (2) discouraging the claimant from filing suit; (3) discouraging the claimant from obtaining counsel; or (4) otherwise egregious conduct. If one of those behaviors is present, then the court will engage in the second part of the test by looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s actions. Equitable estoppel will be available to the claimant when the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s conduct have induced the claimant to delay timely action…and the claimant’s reliance on the insurer’s statements or actions was reasonable…” (Internal citations omitted.)

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Gearlds v. State, No. 90A02-1105-CR-433, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 24, 2011).

Error in statute defining A misdemeanor driving while suspended with a prior within ten years does not prevent its enforcement.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Conder v. State, No. 49A02-1012-PC-1404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2011).

Depending on the manner in which they are used (here, to kick a person to death), feet and shoes can be a statutory “deadly weapon.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Vaughn v. State, No. 45A05-1102-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

Mistrial was required when bailiff, at court’s direction, restrained defendant and placed a hand over defendant’s mouth as jurors were leaving the courtroom after defendant, about to testify in his own behalf, launched into a criticism of defense counsel which continued despite court’s orders to stop.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Perry v. State, No. 49A05-1012-CR-774, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2011).

Admission of hospital nurse’s record of statements assault victim made to nurse, including identity of attacker, did not violate either the hearsay rule or the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion