litigation claim in Indiana

2019In essence, Father contends that “res judicata prevented the trial court from re-determining on this record in 2017 his job position and corresponding salary” that the dissolution court and this Court on appeal had “just determined in 2014 on the same general type of evidence.” Id. at 13. [11] “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2017But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from 2 “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Com’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied).

2017But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from 2 “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Com’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied).

2015Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

2017See id. at 1064 (affirming the Indiana Board’s final determination due to lack of evidence presented by the taxpayer); see also Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, 914 N.E.2d at 15 (rejecting bright-line tests in the context of the charitable purposes exemption). 9 Here, Indiana has taken on the burden of providing mental health care for the indigent.

2017See id. at 1064 (affirming the Indiana Board’s final determination due to lack of evidence presented by the taxpayer); see also Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, 914 N.E.2d at 15 (rejecting bright-line tests in the context of the charitable purposes exemption). 9 Here, Indiana has taken on the burden of providing mental health care for the indigent.

2017Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

1990See, Koors, supra. Even in that situation, the Court in Koors noted that "[the unexpected withdrawal of counsel, untimely though it may be, does not necessarily entitle a party to a continuance when it is not shown that counsel thereafter employed was unable to prepare and conduct a proper case." Here, Strutz was acting as his own counsel, and the record reveals that he continued to act as his own counsel throughout the litigation of this claim, even after he had retained co-counsel.