When a defendant is removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, a trial court is not required to advise the defendant that he may return to the courtroom if he promises to behave.
E. Tavitas
Waller v. City of Madison, No. 21A-PL-928, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, Feb. 3, 2022).
A municipal appointee removable “for cause” may be removed only for acts or omissions that diminish the appointee’s ability or fitness to perform the duties of the appointment.
Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., No. 21A-CP-936, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2021).
Trial court improperly granted T.R. 12(B)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because a fact-sensitive and claim-specific analysis is required to determine whether the First Amendment bars the claims against the church, the issue was not ripe for disposition.
In re K.W. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., No. 21A-JC-598, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2021).
CHINS fact-finding hearing and dispositional hearings were properly continued for good cause pursuant to Trial Rule 53.5.
Wells v. State, 21A-CR-612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 22, 2021).
Exclusion from trial for failing a drug test is improper. In such instances, a trial court should apply, and exhaust, lesser contempt penalties, before imposing the extreme sanction of the deprivation of fundamental rights.