When seeking an interlocutory appeal, the State must formally move for a stay of the proceedings to properly toll the time limit set forth Criminal Rule 4(C).
S. David
Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).
When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.
Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.
In re R.L.., No. 20S-JC-296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 5, 2020).
DCS was barred from filing a successive CHINS action after the first petition was dismissed with prejudice. DCS “cannot engage in piecemeal litigation to get subsequent bites at the same apple.”
Robertson v. State, No. 19S-PL-432, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 30, 2020).
For the claims to recover public funds pursuant to Ind. Code § 5-11-5-1(a), the limitations period begins to run only after the Office of the Indiana Attorney General receives a final, verified report from the State Board of Accounts. Claims pursuant to the Crime Victims Relief Act are governed by the discovery rule.