Appellate precedent holds, without exception, that an appraiser’s award is binding if no party timely files exceptions. The trial court lost its discretion to deny the State’s motion for judgment when the defendant failed to timely file exceptions to the appraisers’ report. This, combined with the ethical conundrum the State finds itself in if it is compelled to mediate a judgment amount that has already been fixed by law, is sufficient to establish extreme hardship to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Uncategorized
Rosen v. Community Healthcare System d/b/a Community Hospital, No. 25S-CT-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 11, 2026).
Rosen argues we should vacate the judgment for the hospital for two reasons. First, she claims the hospital spoliated evidence, and she was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court unreasonably declining to remedy the spoliation. Second, she claims the trial court erred by sustaining the hospital’s objections to her introducing evidence that there was additional video footage that the hospital didn’t preserve. The hospital responds that each of these rulings reflects a reasonable judgment call within the trial court’s discretion. We agree with the hospital and analyze each issue in turn.
Wilson v. State, No. 25A-CR-1542, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2026).
There must be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual driving behavior before a reasonable suspicion arises that a motorist who is merely making jerky body movements is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Ocampo v. State, No. 24A-CR-2785, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025).
The legality of a K9’s interior sniff of a vehicle before probable cause has been established to conduct a search is governed by the “instinctive entry rule,” under which a K9’s instinctive entry into a vehicle does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as it is not directed, encouraged, or facilitated by officers.