The Department of Education’s blanket policy of rejecting correction proposals by CACFP participants once a deficiency recurs, despite its authority to exercise such discretion under federal law, was arbitrary and capricious.
D. Molter
Monroe v. State, No. 26S-CR-208, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 29, 2026).
Tumulty’s bar on direct appeals from guilty pleas applies to double-jeopardy challenges to convictions entered on a guilty plea, so the defendant generally must proceed via post-conviction relief rather than a direct appeal. But a defendant may obtain direct appellate review by moving to withdraw the guilty plea as to the lesser-included offense (and asking the trial court to vacate that conviction) and then appealing the denial of that motion.
PENN Entertainment, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 24S-TA-382, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 29, 2026).
An apportioned tax, such as a state net income tax, that a corporation pays to one state cannot be a cost of generating taxable income for another state.
Stabosz v. Friedman, No. 26S-PL-199, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 26, 2026).
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.
Ramos-Osario v. State, No. 26S-CR-198, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
While judges can reconsider pretrial suppression rulings, the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial.