A Level 5 criminal recklessness conviction did not bar the stepfather from adoption because the court ruled on the adoption petition after the five-year period had expired. This court found that the time period noted in the statute “refers to the date the court rules on the petition, not the filing date” of the petition.
Civil
Leonard v. State, No. 26A-IF-365, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 16, 2026).
Squealing tires while departing from a traffic light, standing alone, does not prove that a driver committed the civil infraction of unsafe start.
Harrison County Parks & Rec. v. David Hussung, No. 26A-EX-780, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2026).
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.”
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.