The “reasonable particularity” requirement under the Access to Public Records Act “enables the subpoenaed party to identify what is sought and enables the trial court to determine whether there has been sufficient compliance with the request.”
Civil
Curts v. Miller Health Systems, Inc., No. 09A02-1112-CT-1191, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2012).
“[N]urses can potentially have sufficient expertise to qualify as experts for the purposes of medical standards of care and medical causation.”
Anyango v. Rolls Royce Corp., No. 49S04-1207-CT-434, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., July 30, 2012).
The trial court correctly granted a motion to dismiss under T.R. 4.4(C) because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the alternative forum was “so inadequate or unsatisfactory that there is no remedy at all.”
Ryan v. Ryan, No. 71S03-1111-DR-644,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., July 31, 2012).
T.R. 60(B) relief was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case, but, subject to the limitations of substantive contract law, there are circumstances when T.R. 60(B) relief could be granted in a dispute over a settlement agreement or property division order.
Shepard Properties Co. v. Int’l Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council 91, No. 49S04-1112-PL-697, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., July 31, 2012).
The Access to Public Records Act permits the award of attorney’s fees against an intervening private party.