When a person has been simultaneously confined in connection with multiple causes and the court must impose consecutive sentences across those causes, Indiana law requires the trial court to (1) calculate credit time at the rate associated with the first sentence in the sequence of sentences and (2) allocate the time to that first sentence.
M. Bailey
In re Change of Name and Gender of H.S., No. 21A-MI-884, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2021).
When a parent seeks a change of gender marker for a child, it must be accompanied by a best interests analysis and include more than conclusory testimony.
Abbott v. State, 19A-PL-1635, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 15, 2021).
In a civil forfeiture action, the res may be used for defense related expenses.
H.H. v. S. H., No. 20A-PO-926, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2020).
Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(f) does not require that the trial court make a particularized finding to support a deviation from the stated two-year term when issuing a protective order.
Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 20A-CT-214, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2020).
Defendant was not negligent when its grass grew so high that the grass blocked the view at the intersection because the “dangerous condition” was confined to defendant’s property.