Trial court could not use Trial Rule 60(B)(3) to grant relief on grounds that the defendant could have raised in a motion to correct error.
C. Goff
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).
The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.
In re Adoption of P.J.W., No. 24S-AD-117, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2025).
For an adoption petition, trial courts should address a petitioner’s advanced age as to whether “the petitioner or petitioners for adoption are of sufficient ability to rear the child and furnish suitable support and education.”
Gierek v. Anonymous 1, No. 23S-CT-277, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2025).
Class certification by the trial court is a proper preliminary determination under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The MMA covers all claims for medical “malpractice” and is not limited to claims involving only bodily injury or death.
Bradley v. State, No. 24S-CR-206, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 18, 2024).
A trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not extinguish and reset time under Criminal Rule 4(B); so long as the defendant maintains a position reasonably consistent with his speedy-trial request, delays attributable to competency evaluations simply toll the applicable deadline.