When a jurisdictional priority problem arises in a proceeding concerning custody of a child, that jurisdictional priority problem presumptively qualifies as a potential ground for permissive intervention under TR 24(B)(2). Under these circumstances, permissive intervention should only be denied if the trial court finds that (1) the first-to-file petitioner has relinquished their interest in pursuing custody of the child, or (2) intervention is unnecessary because the child’s placement with the second-to-file petitioner is clearly in the child’s best interests. If neither finding is supported by the record, the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary and unusual to permit intervention under TR 24(B)(2).
E. Tavitas
In re Paternity of G.S., No. 25A-AD-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2025).
Paternity proceeding was not required to be transferred to the county where adoption was pending.
Lammons v. EDCO Environmental Serv., Inc., No. 24A-CT-2057, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2025).
When defendant asked the city to protect consumers from “unscrupulous licensed contractors,” her statement, as a matter of law, did not constitute a false defamatory statement. Defendant neither stated nor implied a provably false fact but merely indicated her honestly held opinion.
Waldon v. State, No. 24A-CR-1824, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2025).
To determine whether offenses constitute a single episode of criminal conduct, courts must balance the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the time span over which the offenses occurred and the time between the offenses, with extra weight given when the offenses are simultaneous or contemporaneous; (2) whether the offenses occurred at separate locations, and if so, the distance between them; (3) whether the offenses each stand alone, that is to say, can be described without reference to one another; and (4) whether the offenses are united by a common scheme or purpose beyond the mere desire to commit multiple crimes. No one factor is determinative, although the first two are the most important. Ultimately, the time, place, and circumstances must demonstrate that the offenses are but parts of a larger or more comprehensive series such that they can be fairly described as a single episode of criminal conduct.
Tillett v. State, No. 24A-CR-1413, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 28, 2025).
A defendant, charged with a felony, must file a notice of intent to raise an insanity defense no later than 20 days before omnibus date. However, in the interest of justice and upon a showing of good cause, a trial court may permit the filing to be made at any time before commencement of the trial.