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.
Haslam v. State, No. 22A-CR-00911, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2022).
Credit time earned while confined on home detention as a condition of probation reduces the length of home detention, not the length of the probation.
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).
Minges v. State, No. 22S-CR-285, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 23, 2022).
Trial Rule 26(B)(3) provides adequate guidance for the trial court to determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a police report is protectible work product; overruling State ex rel. Keaton v. Cir. Ct. of Rush Cnty., 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985).
Newcomb, Jr. v. State, No. 22A-PC-318, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2022).
A miscarriage of justice, including when a person is convicted of an offense they did not commit, can be corrected within the confines of post-conviction relief.