A trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not extinguish and reset time under Criminal Rule 4(B); so long as the defendant maintains a position reasonably consistent with his speedy-trial request, delays attributable to competency evaluations simply toll the applicable deadline.
Supreme
In re Expungement of R.L., No. 24S-XP-185, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 3, 2024).
The anti-discrimination provision in the expungement act does not displace the statutory requirement when relief must be sought through the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.
AMW Investments, Inc. v. Town of Clarksville, No. 24S-PL-183, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 4, 2024).
Appealing a monetary discovery sanction also puts the underlying discovery order before the appellate court. Late objections to discovery are presumptively waived, but trial courts may exercise their discretion and excuse any waiver.
Wohlt v. Wohlt, No. 24S-DR-385, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2024).
Property settlement agreement had no ambiguity when it used the word “all” to describe division of assets; both forgotten and remembered assets were included in that description so that the property division would be final.
Finnegan v. State, No. 24S-MI-68, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 5, 2024).
Statutory procedures for asserting the insanity defense in criminal proceedings do not apply in an indirect criminal contempt action because it is not a criminal case.