Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.
Schoeff v. State, No. 23A-CR-02163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2024).
While the Richardson actual-evidence test no longer applies to claims of substantive double jeopardy violations, it does apply to claims of procedural double jeopardy.
Perdue Farms, Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, No. 24S-PL-40, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2024).
Forum selection clause cannot be enforced against non-contracting employees for claims against them arising from the contract.
In re Paternity of E.B.K., No. 23A-JP-2316, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2024).
The thirty-seven-month time period between the temporary custody order and the permanent custody order was an extraordinary delay that prejudiced mother and violated her due process rights. Trial courts have a statutory duty under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-6 to expedite custody proceedings.
Frye v. State, No. 23A-CR-1691, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2024).
The ability to consent is a unifying theme to the separate situations of proscribed conduct constituting Level 3 felony rape; a defendant should be able to ask the alleged victim questions about their shared sexual history to determine whether there is any basis by which defendant could defend themselves by arguing the alleged were consensual.