Parties satisfy “the exhaustion rule” required for “appellate review of for-cause challenges to prospective jurors” “the moment they use their final peremptory challenge” – regardless of whether the final peremptory is used to strike “a candidate they consider undesirable” or instead is used to cure the trial court’s refusal to strike an allegedy incompetent one for cause.” And parties who comply with the exhaustion rule and also show they were unable to remove any objectionable juror because they had no peremptories left may have appellate review of any denial of a motion to strike for cause, even if no challenged juror actually served on the jury.
L. Rush
Wysocki v. Johnson, No. 45S03-1407-CT-459, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2014).
Liability under the Crime Victims Relief Act is a ”matter of the factfinder’s discretionary judgment of whether the defendant is criminally culpable.”
Pohl v. Pohl, No. 32S04-1404-DR-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).
“[A]ny maintenance provision in a settlement agreement, regardless of its grounds, is modifiable only if the agreement so provides.”
Hughley v. State, No. 49S04-1406-MI-386, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).
A self-serving, but competent affidavit that contradicted the State’s designated evidence on a material fact was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Ind. Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 49S10-1402-TA-79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 25, 2014).
Company could not deduct foreign-source dividend income when calculating its net operating losses for Indiana tax purposes.