Litigant waived her appellate claims by citing nonexistent legal authorities and to real legal authorities that have nothing to do with the propositions they purport to support.
Appeals
Noons v. First Merchants Bank, No. 25A-CC-419, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
Time to respond to a motion is tolled while a case is removed to federal court; the time period to respond resumes where it left off once the case is remanded to the state court again.
Sanders v. US Bank Trust Nat’l Assoc., No. 24A-MF-1265, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
Ind. Code 32-30-10-14, regarding the distribution of sheriff sale proceeds, allows junior mortgagees to retain their rights to surplus proceeds when their liens are displaced by a senior foreclosure.
Nielson v. State, No. 24A-CR-2295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
The invited-error doctrine applies only when a party challenging a trial-court action affirmatively requested the action as part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy.
Ocampo v. State, No. 24A-CR-2785, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025).
The legality of a K9’s interior sniff of a vehicle before probable cause has been established to conduct a search is governed by the “instinctive entry rule,” under which a K9’s instinctive entry into a vehicle does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as it is not directed, encouraged, or facilitated by officers.