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).
P. Felix
Cingel v. Ferreri, No. 25A-DC-500, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
Litigant waived her appellate claims by citing nonexistent legal authorities and to real legal authorities that have nothing to do with the propositions they purport to support.
White v. State, No. 24A-CR-2592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 25, 2025).
Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.
Heitz v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 6, 2025).
When a trial court’s local practice conflicts with Criminal Rule 4(C), the local practice is invalid, and delays arising from noncompliance with such practices cannot be charged to defendants.
Stafford v. Stafford, No. 24A-DC-2457, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2025).
Eliminating all overnights amounts to a restriction on parenting time.