Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services
A trial court’s order on a repetitive motion or a motion to reconsider is an “other interlocutory order” under App. Rule 14(B).
The Court also creates a legal framework for determining whether good cause exists to limit or prohibit the deposition of a high-ranking official.
Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme
A party invites an error if it was part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy, which means there must be evidence of counsel’s strategic maneuvering at trial to establish invited error. As to juror challenges, an anticipated refusal does not excuse compliance with the exhaustion rule; a party must still try to use a peremptory challenge even if he believes it will be unsuccessful.
The Governor is not procedurally barred from seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of HEA-1123; the Court holds HEA-1123 is unconstitutional.
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.
The public disclosure of private facts is a viable tort claim.
Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.