Indiana calls the opening paper a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims). Self-represented parties file in Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent). Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Indiana counsel outside small-claims exceptions. That is what separates Indiana filing a lawsuit without a lawyer from a generic national summary. Read Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure before the background sections below. E-filing: Indiana Odyssey eFiling. Self-represented parties can e-file in most Indiana trial courts; small claims still offers clerk-counter filing in many counties. Service: Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17. Small claims: small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts (generally up to $10,000).
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Indiana |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Indiana theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Indiana Rules of Evidence.
Can you litigate pro se in Indiana?
Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Indiana counsel outside small-claims exceptions.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.
Indiana Courts self-service portal publishes small-claims and civil forms.
Indiana opinions on pro se practice
Jerry THACKER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Margaret WENTZEL and Jack Wentzel, Jr., Appellees-Defendants
…Summary Judgment Issue on Appeal An appellant who proceeds pro se is "held to the same established rules of procedure that a trained legal counsel is bound to follow and, therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her action." Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quotation marks omitted). While we…
Jerry THACKER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Margaret WENTZEL and Jack Wentzel, Jr., Appellees-Defendants is worth reading on Indiana pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "Summary Judgment Issue on Appeal An appellant who proceeds pro se is 'held to the same established rules of procedure that a trained legal counsel is bound to follow and, therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her action.' Ramsey v. Review Bd." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Dayton D. EVANS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee
Dayton D. EVANS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee, 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 955 (2004)
…e. Id. at 1088. In November 2000, Evans attempted to file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, but for reasons not disclosed in the record it was refused by the court. On December 18, 2000, Evans successfully filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief along with an affidavit of indigeney. 1 The post-conviction court found Evans to be indigent and thus forward…
Practitioners open Dayton D. EVANS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee when Indiana pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Id. at 1088. In November 2000, Evans attempted to file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, but for reasons not disclosed in the record it was refused by the court." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Ernest T. SMITH, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent
…he trial court. See id. at 677. Thereafter, Smith filed his pro se PCR petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The State responded to Smith's petition, and eventually, the PCR court directed the parties to submit affidavits in support of and in opposition to the petition. 1 Thereafter, Smith filed a pro se amended PCR petition, in which he, again, *198 raised…
Practitioners open Ernest T. SMITH, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent when Indiana pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "See id. at 677. Thereafter, Smith filed his pro se PCR petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The State responded to Smith's petition, and eventually, the PCR court directed the parties to submit affidavits in support of and in opposition to the petition." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Eric D. SMITH, Appellant-Defendant, v. J. David DONAHUE, Ed Buss, Craig Hanks, and Stanley Knight, Appellees-Plaintiffs
…dismissing Smith's complaint. On September 14, 2007, Smith, pro se, filed a complaint for damages against DOC Commissioner J. David Donahue; Indiana State Prison Superintendent Ed Buss; New Castle Correctional Facility Superintendent Craig Hanks; Pendleton Correctional Facility Superintendent Stanley Knight; and DOC employees John and/or Jane Doe. Smith's complaint alleged that…
Indiana opinions such as Eric D. SMITH, Appellant-Defendant, v. J. David DONAHUE, Ed Buss, Craig Hanks, and Stanley Knight, Appellees-Plaintiffs are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Smith's complaint. On September 14, 2007, Smith, pro se, filed a complaint for damages against DOC Commissioner J." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Romane J. RICKELS, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Patricia A. HERR, Appellee-Defendant
RUCKER, Judge. Acting pro se in the trial court, Romane Rickels filed a complaint against his ex-wife Patricia A. Herr seeking damages for her actions which ultimately resulted in Rickels' involuntary commitment to a state hospital. In response, Herr filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Rickels, pro se, now app…
On pro se, Romane J. RICKELS, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Patricia A. HERR, Appellee-Defendant speaks to the Indiana dispute in this passage: "RUCKER, Judge. Acting pro se in the trial court, Romane Rickels filed a complaint against his ex-wife Patricia A. Herr seeking damages for her actions which ultimately resulted in Rickels' involuntary commitment to a state hospital." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Indiana Ex Rel. DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF the SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA v. Dennis N. CROFTS, Respondent
…of $1,000,000 dollars in each cause. The causes were filed pro se, but notarized before the Respondent. Attached to the complaints filed under Adversary Proceeding Numbers 86-0049 and 86-0052 were certifications signed by the Respondent noting that the documents were copies of originals maintained in his possession. Counter pleadings were filed and on or about March 14, 1986,…
Practitioners open STATE of Indiana Ex Rel. DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF the SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA v. Dennis N. CROFTS, Respondent when Indiana pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The causes were filed pro se, but notarized before the Respondent. Attached to the complaints filed under Adversary Proceeding Numbers 86-0049 and 86-0052 were certifications signed by the Respondent noting that the documents were copies of originals maintained in his possession." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD and Marion County Board of Voter Registration, Appellants-Defendants, v. Gregory BOWES
…Gregory Bowes (“Bowes”), an attorney who litigated a claim pro se under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”). Bowes also cross-appeals. At trial, the trial court concluded that Bowes could not recover attorney fees under APRA for his successful APRA claim because he had litigated the claim pro se. Nevertheless, the trial court awarded Bowes “expenses of litigation…
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD and Marion County Board of Voter Registration, Appellants-Defendants, v. Gregory BOWES is worth reading on Indiana pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "Gregory Bowes (“Bowes”), an attorney who litigated a claim pro se under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”). Bowes also cross-appeals." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Nathaneal C. MILLER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION and Greater Lafayette Area
…ffectively represents himself. 4) To award attorney fees to pro se litigants would, create a disincentive for litigants to hire independent counsel who can better ensure effective prosecution of meritorious claims. See id. at 611-12. The court in Rappaport relied upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kay v. Ehrler (1991), 499 U.S. 432, 111 S.Ct. 1435, 113 L.E.…
Practitioners open Nathaneal C. MILLER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION and Greater Lafayette Area when Indiana pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "To award attorney fees to pro se litigants would, create a disincentive for litigants to hire independent counsel who can better ensure effective prosecution of meritorious claims. See id. at 611-12." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under Trial Rule 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury unless transferred to the plenary docket.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
A concrete Indiana scenario
Here is one way the Indiana pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A person in Indiana wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Indiana counsel outside small-claims exceptions.
- Draft a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims) and file it in Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent). E-filing: Self-represented parties can e-file in most Indiana trial courts; small claims still offers clerk-counter filing in many counties.
- Serve under Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17. Serve under Trial Rules 4 series — sheriff or private process server personal service is common. File the return of service. Small claims often use simplified certified-mail service options.
- Expect discovery under Ind. R. Trial P. 26–37 govern discovery in plenary civil cases. Small claims discovery is tightly limited. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under Trial Rule 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury unless transferred to the plenary docket.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Indiana. The evidence companion is the Indiana evidence guide.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Indiana the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims). It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Indiana pleadings opinions
STATE of Indiana, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. COUNTY LINE PARK, INC., Paul D. Fox and Carolyn
…obile home occupancy limit. In response, Landowners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) contending that although the Act prohibits discrimination against families in general, it does not provide protection to “large families” such as the Cains. Landowners also contended that under the Act, the Foxes, as corporate officers and shareholders o…
STATE of Indiana, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. COUNTY LINE PARK, INC., Paul D. Fox and Carolyn is worth reading on Indiana pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "In response, Landowners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) contending that although the Act prohibits discrimination against families in general, it does not provide protection to “large families” such as the Cains." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Albert Jenkins v. Richard Gordon Hatcher, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Gary, Indiana, Gary Fire Civil
…denominated a “Motion for Summary Judgment”, was actually a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6). He contends that the decision of the trial court was incorrect unless it is clear from the complaint that under no set of facts could relief be granted. Defendants-appellees contend that t…
Albert Jenkins v. Richard Gordon Hatcher, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Gary, Indiana, Gary Fire Civil is worth reading on Indiana pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "Motion for Summary Judgment”, was actually a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
INDIANAPOLIS YELLOW CAB, INC., Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. the INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellee
…was not filed by that date. The complainant did not file a motion to dismiss the petition for judicial review for failing to file the record in a timely manner until August 26, 1976, almost six months later. That delay did not forestall this court from reversing the reviewing court’s denial of the motion to dismiss: “As [this court] said in Gleason [v. Real Estate Commission (…
Indiana opinions such as INDIANAPOLIS YELLOW CAB, INC., Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. the INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellee are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "The complainant did not file a motion to dismiss the petition for judicial review for failing to file the record in a timely manner until August 26, 1976, almost six months later." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
George Constantine, Robert H. Staton, Deerfield Civic League v. City-County Council of Marion County, Metropolitan
Pivarnik, J. This appeal is before us on appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no issue is raised herein since there is neither a final judgment from which to appeal nor a proper motion to correct errors based on a precise final judgment. Since one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals is a party to this action, the Supreme Court has exercised original jurisdi…
Practitioners open George Constantine, Robert H. Staton, Deerfield Civic League v. City-County Council of Marion County, Metropolitan when Indiana pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Pivarnik, J. This appeal is before us on appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no issue is raised herein since there is neither a final judgment from which to appeal nor a proper motion to correct errors based on a precise final judgment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
SOUTHERN INDIANA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. the CIVIL
…(Supp. 1977). Although we previously had denied Tell City’s motion to dismiss this appeal in an order dated November 9, 1977, we have reconsidered that ruling and, having reconsidered also the briefs filed by the parties on this issue, we now dismiss this appeal. In order to understand the issues posed for our consideration we first must review the appellate and trial records o…
Indiana opinions such as SOUTHERN INDIANA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. the CIVIL are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "Supp. 1977). Although we previously had denied Tell City’s motion to dismiss this appeal in an order dated November 9, 1977, we have reconsidered that ruling and, having reconsidered also the briefs filed by the parties on this issue, we now dismiss this appeal." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, David L. Staples, Everrett J. Coleman, Loren O. Blaase, Lee A. Shelton, Mary E
…re) appeal from the trial court judgment which denied their motion to dismiss and set aside the ICRC order which found that the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (the International) and the local union thereof (Local 499) engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice within the meaning of Ind.Code 22-9-1-3(1) a…
On pleadings, INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, David L. Staples, Everrett J. Coleman, Loren O. Blaase, Lee A. Shelton, Mary E speaks to the Indiana dispute in this passage: "ICRC order which found that the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (the International) and the local union thereof (Local 499) engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice within the meaning of Ind." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION and Roselee Thomas, Appellants (Respondents Below), v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGING
…sion ever considered the motion. The IDACS responded with a motion to dismiss, argu *874 ing that no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the IDACS and Thomas. After the issue was fully briefed and argued, the chairman of the Commission granted the IDACS's motion, entering special findings of fact and conclusions of law. The chairman found in essence that the IDA…
Indiana opinions such as INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION and Roselee Thomas, Appellants (Respondents Below), v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGING are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "The IDACS responded with a motion to dismiss, argu *874 ing that no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the IDACS and Thomas." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, David L. Staples as Chairman of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and Gerald
…an alcoholic. Kightlinger responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss alleging that a "partner" is not an employee, that discrimination against a partner does not constitute "discrimination relating to employment" and that partnerships are beyond the scope of the Indiana Civil Rights Law. Ind.Code 22-9-1-1 et seq. The ICRC denied the motion to dismiss and concluded that…
INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, David L. Staples as Chairman of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and Gerald is worth reading on Indiana pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "Indiana Civil Rights Law. Ind.Code 22-9-1-1 et seq." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How to file and serve in Indiana
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent) for larger or complex civil cases; small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts when your claim fits generally up to $10,000.
- Prepare the complaint (or notice of claim in small claims) (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Indiana practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17.
Serve under Trial Rules 4 series — sheriff or private process server personal service is common. File the return of service. Small claims often use simplified certified-mail service options.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Indiana service opinions
David MUNSTER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Joe GROCE and Business World, Inc., Appellees-Defendants
…issues before us are: I. whether Munster properly effected service of process on Groce; and II. whether Munster properly effected service of process on BWI. Facts On February 25, 2000, Munster and Groce were involved in an automobile accident. At the time, Groce was an employee of BWI, a corporation that later was dissolved in July 2001. On February 15, 2002, Munster filed a c…
David MUNSTER, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Joe GROCE and Business World, Inc., Appellees-Defendants is worth reading on Indiana service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "I. whether Munster properly effected service of process on Groce; and II. whether Munster properly effected service of process on BWI. Facts On February 25, 2000, Munster and Groce were involved in an automobile accident." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Andre LaPALME and Danaca Transport Ltee, Appellants, v. Juan ROMERO and Dolores Romero, Appellees
…his is an appeal from that order. LaPalme contends that the service of process upon him was not sufficient. We agree and conclude that LaPalme is entitled to relief from the judgment. ' The decision whether or not to set aside a default judgment is given substantial deference on appeal. Appellate review of the refusal to set aside a default judgment is limited to determining wh…
Indiana opinions such as Andre LaPALME and Danaca Transport Ltee, Appellants, v. Juan ROMERO and Dolores Romero, Appellees are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "LaPalme contends that the service of process upon him was not sufficient. We agree and conclude that LaPalme is entitled to relief from the judgment. ' The decision whether or not to set aside a default judgment is given substantial deference on appeal." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Glennar Mercury-Lincoln, Inc., Ford Motor Co. v. Betty Joanna Riley
Glennar Mercury-Lincoln, Inc., Ford Motor Co. v. Betty Joanna Riley, 167 Ind. App. 144 (1975)
…d after the default, but before the judgment thereon. 2. No service of process was had upon Glennar so that the court did not have jurisdiction over Glennar’s person, and therefore the default order is “void” under TR. 60(B) (6). 3. Even if service of process was sufficient for in personam jurisdiction, Glennar lacked actual knowledge of the suit through no fault of its own, an…
Practitioners open Glennar Mercury-Lincoln, Inc., Ford Motor Co. v. Betty Joanna Riley when Indiana service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "No service of process was had upon Glennar so that the court did not have jurisdiction over Glennar’s person, and therefore the default order is “void” under TR. 60(B) (6). 3." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
GEIGER AND PETERS, INC., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. AMERICAN FLETCHER NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee
…f Geiger’s cross complaint? III.Did AFNB waive the issue of service of process? 1 We reverse. On April 12, 1978, J. D. Nance (Nance) filed a complaint to foreclose a mechanics lien against six named defendants, including appellant Geiger and appellee American Fletcher National Bank (AFNB). AFNB was not served with summons. On May 3, 1978 Geiger filed a denominated “cross-claim”…
GEIGER AND PETERS, INC., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. AMERICAN FLETCHER NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee is worth reading on Indiana service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "III.Did AFNB waive the issue of service of process?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
PRECISION ERECTING, INC., and Precision Industrial Contractors, Division of Precision Erecting, Inc
…ve personal jurisdiction over Precision due to insufficient service of process. Service of process on a corporation is controlled by Ind. Trial Rule 4.6 which provides in relevant part that: (A) Persons to Be Served. Service upon an organization may be made as follows: (1) In the case of a domestic or foreign organization upon an executive officer thereof, or if there is an age…
Practitioners open PRECISION ERECTING, INC., and Precision Industrial Contractors, Division of Precision Erecting, Inc when Indiana service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Precision due to insufficient service of process. Service of process on a corporation is controlled by Ind. Trial Rule 4.6 which provides in relevant part that: (A) Persons to Be Served." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Paul B. OVERHAUSER, Defendant-Appellant, v. Mark FOWLER, D/B/A Fowler Earth Moving, Plaintiff-Appellee
…jurisdiction over him because he did not receive sufficient service of process required by the Indiana trial rules. A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant and therefore cannot issue a binding judgment against that defendant if service on him was insufficient or not executed. Smith v. Tisdal (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 42; Chesser v. Chesser (1976), 168 Ind.…
Paul B. OVERHAUSER, Defendant-Appellant, v. Mark FOWLER, D/B/A Fowler Earth Moving, Plaintiff-Appellee is worth reading on Indiana service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Indiana trial rules. A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant and therefore cannot issue a binding judgment against that defendant if service on him was insufficient or not executed. Smith v. Tisdal (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 42; Chesser v." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Registering for e-filing
Indiana's primary electronic filing path is Indiana Odyssey eFiling.
How to register: Create an Odyssey eFiling account for Indiana courts, verify email, and pay filing fees online or submit a fee-waiver affidavit.
Pro se reality check: Self-represented parties can e-file in most Indiana trial courts; small claims still offers clerk-counter filing in many counties.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Indiana:
Ind. R. Trial P. 26–37 govern discovery in plenary civil cases. Small claims discovery is tightly limited.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Indiana discovery opinions
Dorothy M. RIVERS, Personally and as Administratrix of the Estate of James A. Rivers, Deceased
…. On February 19, 1991, Hospital filed its motion to compel discovery specifically requesting the imposition of sanctions. After a change of venue, Hospital filed a motion to compel discovery in Starke County. The Doctors filed a cross-motion to compel discovery on August 29, 1991. The court set a hearing on the pending motions for December 6, 1991. On October 16, 1991, Hospita…
Practitioners open Dorothy M. RIVERS, Personally and as Administratrix of the Estate of James A. Rivers, Deceased when Indiana discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "On February 19, 1991, Hospital filed its motion to compel discovery specifically requesting the imposition of sanctions. After a change of venue, Hospital filed a motion to compel discovery in Starke County. The Doctors filed a cross-motion to compel discovery on August 29, 1991." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
GEORGETOWN STEEL CORPORATION and Joe Etheridge, Defendants-Appellants, v. Lee Allen CHAFFEE and Carla Chaffee
…red as a result of Lee and Carla Chaffees' motion to compel discovery. On appeal the sole issue raised is whether the trial court properly made the award. The facts underlying the Chaffees' claim against Georgetown are not pertinent here, and are fully discussed in this case's previous appellate incarnations. See Chaffee v. Clark Equipment Co. (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 236,…
Indiana opinions such as GEORGETOWN STEEL CORPORATION and Joe Etheridge, Defendants-Appellants, v. Lee Allen CHAFFEE and Carla Chaffee are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Lee and Carla Chaffees' motion to compel discovery. On appeal the sole issue raised is whether the trial court properly made the award." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Lisa B. GONZALEZ, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. R. Stanton EVANS, Appellee-Non-Party
…arded attorney fees in connection with her motion to compel discovery from Evans. Facts Gonzalez was married to Hector Gonzalez. The two divorced in 2009, after the trial court approved their property settlement agreement and made it part of the dissolution decree. The agreement included representations from Hector stating he did not have, and never -had, any interest in certai…
Practitioners open Lisa B. GONZALEZ, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. R. Stanton EVANS, Appellee-Non-Party when Indiana discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Evans. Facts Gonzalez was married to Hector Gonzalez. The two divorced in 2009, after the trial court approved their property settlement agreement and made it part of the dissolution decree." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Nick POPOVICH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE
Nick POPOVICH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, 2014 Ind. Tax LEXIS 13 (2014)
…onal facts will be supplied as necessary. LAW In Indiana, “[discovery is designed to be self-executing with little, if any, supervision of the court.” Trost-Steffen v. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d 500, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. When the goals of this system break down, Indiana’s trial rules provide the parties with tools for moving the process forward. For instance, Indiana…
Indiana opinions such as Nick POPOVICH v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "LAW In Indiana, “[discovery is designed to be self-executing with little, if any, supervision of the court.” Trost-Steffen v. Steffen, 772 N.E.2d 500, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Nick POPOVICH, Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent
…numbered list of each item it [sought] to be protected from discovery[.]” (See Order, Feb. 20, 2012.) The Department’s response indicated that it was raising about 418 separate objections to nearly all.of Popovich’s interrogatories- and requests for production. (See generally Resp’t Resp. Item No. 2, Feb. 29, 2012.) (See also Pet’r Mot. Compel, Ex. A at 15-70 and Ex. G at 9-103…
On discovery, Nick POPOVICH, Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent speaks to the Indiana dispute in this passage: "See Order, Feb. 20, 2012.) The Department’s response indicated that it was raising about 418 separate objections to nearly all.of Popovich’s interrogatories- and requests for production. (See generally Resp’t Resp. Item No. 2, Feb. 29, 2012.) (See also Pet’r Mot. Compel, Ex." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
AMERISTAR CASINO EAST CHICAGO, LLC, Ameristar East Chicago Holdings, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc
…ers of noncompliance with our liberal and self-effectuating discovery process. Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, Ameristar East Chicago Holdings, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (collectively "Ameristar"), bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against Ameristar and in favor of Joseph Ferrantelli…
AMERISTAR CASINO EAST CHICAGO, LLC, Ameristar East Chicago Holdings, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc is worth reading on Indiana discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, Ameristar East Chicago Holdings, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Nick POPOVICH, Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent
…uing that the Department’s obdurate behavior throughout the discovery process had made complying with Trial Rule 26(F) futile. On June 2, 2014, the Court denied that motion. See Popovich v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Popovich III), No. 49T10-1010-TA-00053, 13 - N.E.3d 954, 2014 WL 2560706, at *2 (Ind.Tax Ct.2014). On October 22, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing on the D…
Indiana opinions such as Nick POPOVICH, Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Department’s obdurate behavior throughout the discovery process had made complying with Trial Rule 26(F) futile. On June 2, 2014, the Court denied that motion. See Popovich v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Popovich III), No. 49T10-1010-TA-00053, 13 - N.E." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Cheryl Lynn PRICE by Next Friend Linda PRICE, Margaret Mason v. The METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC.
…ppeal the Lake Superior Court's grant of a motion to compel discovery and award of fees and expenses in favor of appellee The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. (the Hospital). The facts relevant to the appeal disclose that Mason and Price filed medical mal practice complaints against the Hospital with the Lake Circuit Court as well as with the Indiana Insurance Commissioner pursuant to…
Practitioners open Cheryl Lynn PRICE by Next Friend Linda PRICE, Margaret Mason v. The METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC. when Indiana discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Lake Superior Court's grant of a motion to compel discovery and award of fees and expenses in favor of appellee The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. (the Hospital)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Indiana applies the Indiana Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Indiana walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Indiana Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Indiana summary-judgment opinions
Antonio HUGHLEY, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Indiana, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County
RUSH, Chief Justice. Under Indiana Trial Rule 56, summary judgment is precluded by any “genuine” issue of material fact — that is, any issue requiring the trier of fact to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth. Merely resting on the pleadings will not permit the non-movant to raise such an issue, but a competent affidavit will. Here, Defendant’s affidav…
Antonio HUGHLEY, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Indiana, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County is worth reading on Indiana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "RUSH, Chief Justice. Under Indiana Trial Rule 56, summary judgment is precluded by any “genuine” issue of material fact — that is, any issue requiring the trier of fact to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Richard A. ROSI, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. BUSINESS FURNITURE CORPORATION, Appellee (Defendant Below)
…our 1991 amendments to Indiana Trial Rule 56. In moving for summary judgment, both parties were obliged to designate the evi-dentiary matter upon which their legal contentions rested. On the basis of the material so designated, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant. Facts and Procedural History Richard A. Rosi was employed by Business Furniture Cor…
Richard A. ROSI, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. BUSINESS FURNITURE CORPORATION, Appellee (Defendant Below) is worth reading on Indiana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Indiana Trial Rule 56. In moving for summary judgment, both parties were obliged to designate the evi-dentiary matter upon which their legal contentions rested. On the basis of the material so designated, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the defendant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Mary Alice MANLEY, and Gary Manley, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Ryan J. SHERER, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine
…, Mary Alice Manley and Gary Manley, appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Dr. Ryan Sherer and Sherer Family Medicine, P.C. We reverse. On November 27, 2006, Mary Manley was involved in a head-on automobile collision with Kimberly Zehr. At the scene of the accident, Ms. Manley overheard Ms. Zehr say that “she should not be driving because of her me…
Indiana opinions such as Mary Alice MANLEY, and Gary Manley, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Ryan J. SHERER, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Mary Alice Manley and Gary Manley, appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Dr. Ryan Sherer and Sherer Family Medicine, P.C. We reverse. On November 27, 2006, Mary Manley was involved in a head-on automobile collision with Kimberly Zehr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, Garnishee Defendant Below, v. Kenneth W. METZLER, Appellee, Judgment
…is is an appeal from an adverse ruling on cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) was liable to pay a judgment received by Thomas and Margaret Powell (the Powells) against Kenneth Metzler. Metzler had caused injury to the Powells through his operation of a motor vehicle owned by Liberty Mutual's insur…
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, Garnishee Defendant Below, v. Kenneth W. METZLER, Appellee, Judgment is worth reading on Indiana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "The trial court determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) was liable to pay a judgment received by Thomas and Margaret Powell (the Powells) against Kenneth Metzler." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Christine DUGAN, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. MITTAL STEEL USA INC., and Jay Komorowski, in His Individual and
…emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed in part. Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 692 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We granted transfer and now affirm the grant of summary judgment, concluding that the material facts are not in dispute and that a qualified privilege applies to preclude the de…
On summary judgment, Christine DUGAN, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. MITTAL STEEL USA INC., and Jay Komorowski, in His Individual and speaks to the Indiana dispute in this passage: "The Court of Appeals reversed in part. Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 692 (Ind.Ct.App.2009)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Albert Jenkins v. Richard Gordon Hatcher, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Gary, Indiana, Gary Fire Civil
…, finding no genuine issue as to any material fact, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees in an action wherein plaintiff-appellant Albert Jenkins had sought reinstatement to his former rank of battalion chief in the Gary Fire Department, damages for his allegedly improper demotion to the rank of captain and injunctive relief prohibiting the promotion of capt…
Indiana opinions such as Albert Jenkins v. Richard Gordon Hatcher, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Gary, Indiana, Gary Fire Civil are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: ", finding no genuine issue as to any material fact, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees in an action wherein plaintiff-appellant Albert Jenkins had sought reinstatement to his former rank of battalion chief in the Gary Fire Department, damages for his allege" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ronald J. SOLNOSKY, Gary L. Miller, and Medical Marketing Resources SE, Inc
…materially from the facts designated by the parties at the summary judgment stage, we restate the facts and procedural history section from this Court’s previous memorandum decision in this case in its original format: In 1997, OpenSided MRI, LLC (“Open-Sided”) hired Solnosky as a manager at its Jeffersonville facility. Initially, his duties *178 primarily consisted of perform…
Ronald J. SOLNOSKY, Gary L. Miller, and Medical Marketing Resources SE, Inc is worth reading on Indiana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Court’s previous memorandum decision in this case in its original format: In 1997, OpenSided MRI, LLC (“Open-Sided”) hired Solnosky as a manager at its Jeffersonville facility." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Crystal JONES, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Jerry WILSON D/B/A Hoosier Pro Wrestling, Appellee-Defendant
…ir, Inc., and, as is relevant here, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson. 1 Jones appeals, raising the following restated issue: whether the trial court properly determined that Wilson did not owe a duty to Jones to protect her from the criminal acts of a third person that occurred in the parking lot. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On June 7, 201…
Crystal JONES, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Jerry WILSON D/B/A Hoosier Pro Wrestling, Appellee-Defendant is worth reading on Indiana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Inc., and, as is relevant here, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Indiana. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Indiana codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Indiana cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Indiana evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Indiana case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Indiana
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts vs Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims) that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Indiana Odyssey eFiling (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Indiana cases and the Indiana Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Business entities generally need Indiana counsel outside small-claims exceptions.
- Main trial forum: Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent). Smaller disputes often belong in small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts (generally up to $10,000).
- Procedure: Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims).
- Service: Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17. Serve under Trial Rules 4 series — sheriff or private process server personal service is common.
- E-filing: Indiana Odyssey eFiling. Self-represented parties can e-file in most Indiana trial courts; small claims still offers clerk-counter filing in many counties.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Indiana) and the Indiana evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Indiana; Indiana pro se; Indiana Odyssey eFiling; how to sue in Indiana.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Indiana?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Indiana
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Indiana case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Indiana?
Prepare a complaint (or notice of claim in small claims), file it in the correct Indiana court (Circuit or Superior Court (county-dependent) or small-claims dockets of Circuit/Superior or dedicated small-claims courts), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under Ind. R. Trial P. 4–4.17. Register for Indiana Odyssey eFiling when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Self-represented parties can e-file in most Indiana trial courts; small claims still offers clerk-counter filing in many counties. Registration steps: Create an Odyssey eFiling account for Indiana courts, verify email, and pay filing fees online or submit a fee-waiver affidavit.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under Trial Rule 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury unless transferred to the plenary docket.
What happens in discovery?
Ind. R. Trial P. 26–37 govern discovery in plenary civil cases. Small claims discovery is tightly limited.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Indiana opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Indiana attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Indiana sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.