A timely cross-appeal from a trial court’s order belatedly granting a motion to correct error is not limited to only issues raised in a motion to correct error; it may include any issues it preserved in the trial court.
Wike, et al. v. Grandview Solar Project, et. al., No. 26S-PL-192, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
Normally, challenges to a board of zoning appeals’ decision need to be brought within 30 days of the decision. But Indiana recognizes the ultra vires doctrine, which, applied here, says some board of zoning appeals’ actions might be void, meaning they are vulnerable to a lawsuit at any time, even long after the normal window for review has closed.
Ramos-Osario v. State, No. 26S-CR-198, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
While judges can reconsider pretrial suppression rulings, the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial.
Sharon Parsons, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Parson, et al. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Comp. & Danielle Benjamin, et al., No. 25A-CT-2307, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jun. 22, 2026).
Bound by precedent from our Supreme Court construing similar pollution provisions in insurance policies, we find that because the Crum & Forster policy did not unambiguously identify methanol as a pollutant, the trial court erred in applying the TPPL part to the Parsons’ claims.
Masterson v. State, No. 25A-CR-2176, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2026).
A probationer’s lack of fault does not bear on whether a violation occurred but only on the sanction imposed.