The appellate court did not have jurisdiction over denial of summary judgment motion because it was not a final order and did not resolve all claims as to all parties.
Owens v. State, No. 23A-CR-985, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2023).
For a party to invoke T.R. 34 as the basis for an alleged discovery violation, that party must have first made a discovery request. In a criminal case, if the defendant made no discovery request to the State, the defendant cannot later challenge the admission of documents or electronically stored information on the ground that the State violated T.R. 34 in its production of the materials.
Sevion v. State, No. 23A-CR-1107, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2023).
Post-Conviction Rule 2 does not apply to the denial of a bond reduction motion.
Mellowitz v. Ball State University, No. 23S‐PL‐60, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2023).
Shielding post-secondary educational institutions from pandemic‐related class action claims is within the General Assembly’s legislative authority, not an unconstitutional taking, and does not unconstitutionally impair the school’s contract obligations to its students.
Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).
“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”