A timely cross-appeal from a trial court’s order belatedly granting a motion to correct error is not limited to only issues raised in a motion to correct error; it may include any issues it preserved in the trial court.
Supreme
Wike, et al. v. Grandview Solar Project, et. al., No. 26S-PL-192, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
Normally, challenges to a board of zoning appeals’ decision need to be brought within 30 days of the decision. But Indiana recognizes the ultra vires doctrine, which, applied here, says some board of zoning appeals’ actions might be void, meaning they are vulnerable to a lawsuit at any time, even long after the normal window for review has closed.
Ramos-Osario v. State, No. 26S-CR-198, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2026).
While judges can reconsider pretrial suppression rulings, the State is not required to prove constitutional compliance a second time at trial.
Adkins v. State, No. 26S-PC-171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2026).
Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Indiana Code chapter 34-14-1, et seq., not all declaratory judgments are final, appealable orders under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H)(5), but are reviewable as any other orders, judgments, or decrees.
Ortiz v. State, No. 25S-CR-303, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 19, 2026).
A defendant’s “eligibility” for a belated appeal rests not on whether his petition alleges a meritorious claim, but on whether the claim would overcome an appeal waiver if timely brought on direct appeal.