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.
Civil
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.
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.
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.