Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 4-6-3-5 (2026)
Investigative demand; prohibited provisions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. An investigative demand may not:
(1) contain a requirement that would be unreasonable if contained in a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum issued by a court in a grand jury investigation; or
(2) require the giving of oral testimony, the production of written answers to interrogatories, or the production of documentary material that would be privileged from disclosure if demanded by a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court in aid of a grand jury investigation.
As added by Acts 1982, P.L.20, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2000).
Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2000). “[17] This is also consistent with Indiana Code § 4-6-3-5 (1993), which provides in relevant part that a civil "investigative demand" by the state Attorney General "may not .”
Everdry Mktg. & Mgmt., Inc. v. Carter, 885 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Indiana Code Section 4-6-3-5(2) provides, “An investigative demand may not .”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. State, 692 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “Auto-Owners directs our attention to Ind. Code § 4-6-3-5 which provides in relevant part “an investigative demand may not: (1) contain a requirement that would be unreasonable if contained in a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum issued by a Court in a grand jury investigation_”…”
Nu-Sash of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Carter, 887 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. 2008). “§ 4-6-3-5. If the person to whom a CID is directed objects or fails to respond, the Attorney General may file an application for an order to enforce the CID in the county in which the person resides or has a principal place of business.”
Auto Owners Ins. v. State (Ind. 1998). “Auto-Owners directs our attention to Ind. Code § 4-6-3-5 which provides in relevant part "an investigative demand may not: (1) contain a requirement that would be unreasonable if contained in a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum issued by a Court in a grand jury investigation.”
— Ind. Code § 4-6-3-5(2) — 1 case
Everdry Mktg. & Mgmt., Inc. v. Carter, 885 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Indiana Code Section 4-6-3-5(2) provides, “An investigative demand may not .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.