The Governor is not procedurally barred from seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of HEA-1123; the Court holds HEA-1123 is unconstitutional.
L. Rush
Ramirez v. State, No. 21S-CR-373, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2022).
The Indiana Trial Rules do not require the requesting party to state a specific need for copies. Instead, the requesting party need only describe the item “with reasonable particularity” and “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner” for copying the item. To the extent a local rule conflicts with said mandate, the local rule is void. Moreover, when a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, the trial court must evaluate and compare the parties’ diverse interests that would be impacted by altering the schedule.
Community Health Network, Inc. v. McKenzie, No. 20S-CT-648, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 13, 2022).
The public disclosure of private facts is a viable tort claim.
Abbott v. State, No. 21S-PL-347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 29, 2022).
David, J. In Indiana, civil forfeiture actions typically proceed under one of two statutes: the general forfeiture statute or the racketeering forfeiture statute. Today, we consider whether the racketeering forfeiture statute permits a court to release, to the defendant, funds seized in a forfeiture action so the defendant can hire counsel in that same action. […]
Lake Co. Bd. of Commissioners v. State, No. 22S-MI-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 22, 2022).
The Attorney General is required to defend probation officers.