This is the first Indiana case to apply the “moving vehicle” rule set forth in Kovatch, which stated that if an employee is injured “the effects of such a fall are compensable if the employment places the employee in a position increasing the dangerous effects of such a fall, such as on a height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving vehicle.”
Civil
EHF-INDIANA4, LLC v. M&M Investment Group LLC, et al, No. 25A-TP-2505, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2026).
If a company falls behind on property taxes and the property is sold through a tax sale, the auction price is the baseline for just compensation. The Fifth and Eighth Amendments do not require the government to pay former owners based on the hypothetical fair market value of their property.
Rokita, Indiana Attorney General v. Berry Global Group, and Haitian Center of Evansville, No. 25A-MI-2817, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jul. 27, 2026).
Indiana Code section 4-6-3-3 authorizes our attorney general to issue an “investigative demand”—commonly referred to as a “civil investigative demand,” or “CID.” However, there must be an investigation otherwise the CID is unenforceable.
PENN Entertainment, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 24S-TA-382, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 29, 2026).
An apportioned tax, such as a state net income tax, that a corporation pays to one state cannot be a cost of generating taxable income for another state.
Stabosz v. Friedman, No. 26S-PL-199, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 26, 2026).
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.