Trial Rule 26(B)(3) provides adequate guidance for the trial court to determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a police report is protectible work product; overruling State ex rel. Keaton v. Cir. Ct. of Rush Cnty., 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985).
Supreme
624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Housing Auth., No. 22S-CT-140, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 29, 2022).
When city only provided notice of the taking and its hearings by publication, even though it knew how to provide personal notice, it deprived the property owner of a meaningful damages hearing.
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Finnerty, No. 21S-CT-409, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 19, 2022).
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.
City of Gary v. Nicholson, No. 22S-MI-252, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 21, 2022).
Because plaintiffs allege no injury, they have no standing to challenge city ordinance.
Miller v. State, No. 22S-CR-59, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2022).
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.