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.
Osborne v. State, No. 29S02-1608-CR-433, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 29, 2016).
It was unreasonable for the officer to conduct an investigatory stop when he responded to a report that a woman was trapped under her car, but the woman had freed herself prior to his arrival, and the officer witnessed no traffic infractions or criminal conduct.