The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.
Mitchell v. State, No. 25A-CR-1322, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025).
The plain language of Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1.8 does not grant, or even address, the trial court’s authority to modify the conditions of probation upon a defendant’s motion.
Davidson v. Hammond, No. 25A-SC-879, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 25, 2025).
A small claims court must rule on a defendant’s request for a jury trial before the defendant has to pay the fee to transfer the case to the plenary docket.
Indianapolis Public Trans. Co. v. Bush, No. 25S-CT-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 15, 2025).
When a party raises a TR 50(A) argument in a Rule 59(J) motion to correct error, the trial court reviews the evidence as if it were considering a TR 50(A) motion raised before judgment at trial; de novo review is appropriate. When the evidence heard by the jury supports reasonable inferences that defendant was not contributorily negligent, the trial court properly did not disturb the jury verdict.
In re Adoption of Au.S., No. 25A-AD-1046, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
When a jurisdictional priority problem arises in a proceeding concerning custody of a child, that jurisdictional priority problem presumptively qualifies as a potential ground for permissive intervention under TR 24(B)(2). Under these circumstances, permissive intervention should only be denied if the trial court finds that (1) the first-to-file petitioner has relinquished their interest in pursuing custody of the child, or (2) intervention is unnecessary because the child’s placement with the second-to-file petitioner is clearly in the child’s best interests. If neither finding is supported by the record, the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary and unusual to permit intervention under TR 24(B)(2).