When computing the time allowed to register as a sex offender, the day of the triggering event should be excluded.
Waters v. State, No. 06A05-1604-CR-863, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2016).
Trial court should impose a narrower internet restriction that is more in line defendant’s crime rather than a complete internet ban.
Mathews v. State, No. 01A02-1601-CR-104, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2016).
A party seeking judicial recusal must properly bring a Criminal Rule 12 motion, and is not entitled to relief based solely on obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Yeager v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 22A04-1604-MF-727, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2016).
In a mortgage foreclosure, a trial court must hold a hearing or to otherwise obtain information to determine the amount of the defendant’s provisional monthly payment.
Reynolds v. Reynolds, No. 29S04-1612-DR-00636, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Dec. 6, 2016).
Motion for rule to show cause was specific enough to excuse strict compliance with the contempt statute and protect due process rights.