When a party raises a TR 50(A) argument in a Rule 59(J) motion to correct error, the trial court reviews the evidence as if it were considering a TR 50(A) motion raised before judgment at trial; de novo review is appropriate. When the evidence heard by the jury supports reasonable inferences that defendant was not contributorily negligent, the trial court properly did not disturb the jury verdict.
L. Rush
Perry County v. Huck, No. 24S-PL-297, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 22, 2025).
Local elected officials may be designated as part-time employees, which permits the county to exclude them from group health insurance.
State v. B.H., No. 25S-JV-47, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 30, 2025)
Even when Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2 authorizes the State to seek an appeal, the State must still comply with the appellate rules. This includes complying with the thirty-day time limit to file a notice of appeal when, following the entry of a final judgment, a trial court rules on a timely motion to correct error.
Kelly v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, No. 25S-CT-158, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 23, 2025).
The Legislature has not created a private right of action for individuals to seek damages stemming from inaccurate BMV recordkeeping.
In re E.K., No. 24S-JC-300, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).
Courts can amend a CHINS petition on a party’s request to include CHINS allegations not pled by DCS when doing so serves the child’s best interests and does not prejudice the child’s rights. The best practice is for the court and counsel on all sides to determine at the earliest opportunity whether any party might request adjudication under an alternative CHINS category.