The protection order statutes should not be used as a de facto method to modify custody and/or parenting time. However, the protection order statutes offer expedited and ex parte proceedings to provide a “stop gap” to stabilize the situation until the trial court can determine the best interests of the child in a modification proceeding.
Civil
Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., No. 22S-CP-302, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 31, 2022).
The church-autonomy doctrine bars teacher’s claims for dismissal from a Catholic school; the trial court properly dismissed the claim under T.R. 12(B)(6).
624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Housing Auth., No. 22S-CT-140, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 29, 2022).
When city only provided notice of the taking and its hearings by publication, even though it knew how to provide personal notice, it deprived the property owner of a meaningful damages hearing.
William F. Braun Milk Hauling, Inc. v. Malanowski, No. 22A-CT-333, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2022).
Complaint was timely filed because the statute of limitations was tolled in 2020 by the Supreme Court’s orders regarding Covid-19.
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Finnerty, No. 21S-CT-409, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 19, 2022).
A trial court’s order on a repetitive motion or a motion to reconsider is an “other interlocutory order” under App. Rule 14(B).
The Court also creates a legal framework for determining whether good cause exists to limit or prohibit the deposition of a high-ranking official.