A party must establish standing at each stage of litigation. It is not enough for a claimant to establish injury in its pleadings; it must do so at each successive stage of the litigation.
Supreme
State v. Lyons, No. 23S-CR-163, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2023).
Before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice, or that the sanctioned party’s culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.
Performance Service, Inc. v. Randolph Eastern School Corp., No. 23S-CP-59, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 28, 2023).
School corporation’s contract was void because the school corporation exceeded its authority by investing money in a project to earn a financial return.
Miller v. Patel, No. 22S-CT-371, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).
Convictions entered after a guilty plea have the same preclusive effect in subsequent litigation as those entered after jury or court verdicts.
Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, No. 22S‐PL‐338, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2023).
Abortion providers have standing to contest the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1 (2022) because the statute criminalizes their work, and so they face the sort of imminent, direct, personal injury. Indiana Constitution’s Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions. The Court reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction.