The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.
M. DeBoer
Brown v. Charles Sturdevant Post of the American Legion Post #46, No. 25A-PL-513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025).
The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.
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.
In re P.F., No. 25A-JC-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2025).
Trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required to reunify child with parents; there was insufficient evidence that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision (Ind. Code 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7)) were proven. “Removed from the home of the child’s parent…under a dispositional decree” necessarily means that the child was placed outside the parent’s home for any period of time pursuant to a dispositional decree. A trial home visit at a parent’s house is not “removal.”