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.
Civil
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.
Adkins v. State, No. 26S-PC-171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2026).
Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Indiana Code chapter 34-14-1, et seq., not all declaratory judgments are final, appealable orders under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H)(5), but are reviewable as any other orders, judgments, or decrees.
In re Petition to Docket Trust of B. Alice McCoy, et al v. McCoy, No. 25A-TR-367, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 8, 2026)
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 806, when a hearsay statement, such as the attorney’s deposition, has been admitted into evidence, the hearsay declarant’s credibility may be attacked as though they had testified in person.