When a defendant in the probation context wants to waive counsel, the record must show that the probationer was made aware of the nature, extent, and importance of the right to counsel as well as the necessary consequences of waiving such a right.
E. Tavitas
Williams v. State, No. 25A-CR-687, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2026).
Pretrial GPS monitoring does not fall within the statutory meaning of “confinement” for purposes of credit time.
In re Adoption of Au.S., No. 25A-AD-1046, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
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).
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.