This is the first Indiana case to apply the “moving vehicle” rule set forth in Kovatch, which stated that if an employee is injured “the effects of such a fall are compensable if the employment places the employee in a position increasing the dangerous effects of such a fall, such as on a height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving vehicle.”
N. Vaidik
Rokita, Indiana Attorney General v. Berry Global Group, and Haitian Center of Evansville, No. 25A-MI-2817, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jul. 27, 2026).
Indiana Code section 4-6-3-3 authorizes our attorney general to issue an “investigative demand”—commonly referred to as a “civil investigative demand,” or “CID.” However, there must be an investigation otherwise the CID is unenforceable.
Masterson v. State, No. 25A-CR-2176, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2026).
A probationer’s lack of fault does not bear on whether a violation occurred but only on the sanction imposed.
In re Petition to Docket Trust of B. Alice McCoy, et al v. McCoy, No. 25A-TR-367, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 8, 2026)
Under Indiana Evidence Rule 806, when a hearsay statement, such as the attorney’s deposition, has been admitted into evidence, the hearsay declarant’s credibility may be attacked as though they had testified in person.
Neace v. State, No. 25A-CR-1615, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2026).
Asking prospective jurors if they would automatically believe a child does not leave them with a false or misleading impression of the facts or warrant an explanation or rebuttal from the State.