Litigants do not have a license to abuse the litigation process. Pro se litigants must play by the rules. Litigants do not have an unfettered right to proceed in forma pauperis. Courts may place reasonable limits on filings by abusive litigants. Judges should not disqualify themselves because of a baseless demand.
Civil
In re N.R., No. 21S01-1409-AD-592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 25, 2014).
“[A]lthough a party forfeits its right to appeal based on an untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal, this untimely filing is not a jurisdictional defect depriving the appellate courts of authority to entertain the appeal.”
Pohl v. Pohl, No. 32S04-1404-DR-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).
“[A]ny maintenance provision in a settlement agreement, regardless of its grounds, is modifiable only if the agreement so provides.”
Hughley v. State, No. 49S04-1406-MI-386, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).
A self-serving, but competent affidavit that contradicted the State’s designated evidence on a material fact was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).
To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”