conducted hearing in Indiana

2016See Popovich I, 7 N.E.3d at 412-19 . 2 On October 22, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing on Popovich’s request for expenses as required by Indiana Trial Rule 37(A)(4).

2014See Appellants’ Brief at 16; Appellants’ Reply Brief at 5 (citing Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372, 374 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (stating that, when the court orders a hearing and notice of the hearing date is sent to the plaintiff, the hearing requirement of Rule 41(E) is satisfied), trans. denied, and Ind. Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Ritz, 945 N.E.2d 209, 212 , 213 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (noting the statement in Metcalf above in a footnote but also observing in reciting the facts that, with respect to the cause subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Trial Rule 41(E), the

2014See also Faver v. Bayh, 689 N.E.2d 727, 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (reiterating that “to evaluate a challenged regulation, the court should consider the [foregoing] factors” and applying the Turner factors to an inmate claim).4 4 Subsequently, with respect to protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons, Congress replaced the “legitimate penological interest” standard articulated in Turner with the “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrict means” tests codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 5 Here, the trial court conducted no hearing and did not articulate conclusion

2013In re Adoption of T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 4 Mother filed a motion to withdraw them, alleging that she “did not understand the consequences of the signing of the Consent to adoption.” (Mother’s App. 31.) On May 10, 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing, at which Mother and Father both appeared.

2013I note in passing such a hearing would be little different from that now anticipated by Rule 404(b) which dictates in part, "upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice ... of the general nature of [evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts] it intends to introduce at trial.'' See Hatcher v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1155, 1159 (Ind.2000)(noting the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's objections and arguments regarding the reasonableness of the State's notice and the admissibility evidence contained in the notice).

2009In its order of June 26, 2008, the trial court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment, noting, in pertinent part, the following: 4. * * * By introducing evidence at trial that he had received worker's compensation benefits from Travelers, and by requesting and receiving the final instruction on collateral-source payments that was specifically approved in Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614, 621 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Jarrells ensured that the jury knew he had received collateral-source payments and that, in the words of the relevant final instruction, he `may not recover mor

2009In its order of June 26, 2008, the trial court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment, noting, in pertinent part, the following: 4. * * * By introducing evidence at trial that he had received worker's compensation benefits from Travelers, and by requesting and receiving the final instruction on collateral-souree payments that was specifically approved in Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614, 621 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trams. demied, Jarrells ensured that the jury knew he had received collateral-source payments and that, in the words of the relevant final instruction, he 'may not recover mor

2009See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to

2009See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to

2009See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to

2009See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to

2009See, e.g., Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1295 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision was not unreasonable or arbitrary where the trial court determined that the proof against the defendant was evident and the presumption of his guilt strong, and where the trial court conducted a hearing on the defendant's petition for bail at which the court heard the testimony of five witnesses which encompassed all the evidence contemplated in the case and at which the defendant was accorded the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses in his defense, the right to

2006Thompson v. Clark County Div. of Family & Children, 791 N.E.2d 792, 793, 796 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (holding that the mother was not given the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner when the trial court conducted a hearing "as a summary proceeding where no witnesses testify and no cross-examination is conducted").