While the Richardson actual-evidence test no longer applies to claims of substantive double jeopardy violations, it does apply to claims of procedural double jeopardy.
P. Mathias
Walker v. State, No. 24A-CR-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 19, 2024).
Businesses have a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe environment and preserving order on their premises. However, once a business has entered into an agreement with an individual which grants the individual a contractual interest in its property, the individual may not be found to have committed criminal trespass so long as the individual’s contractual interest remains.
In re Adoption of M.J.H., No. 23A-AD-2769, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2024).
Ind. Code chapter 31-19-5, governing the putative father registry, applies where a mother does not consent to an adoption. The relevance of a mother’s execution of consent to an adoption is merely the timing for her to provide information about a putative father.
Converging Capital, LLC v. Steglich, No. 23A-CC-2854, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2024).
There is no limitations period for the initiation of proceedings supplemental.
Roush v. Roush, No. 23A-DC-2290 __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2024).
Trial court abused its discretion when it granted attorney’s motion to withdraw in violation of T.R. 3.1(H). No prejudice would have resulted to the other party had the trial court continued the hearing by 10 days to give the required party notice of her attorney’s intent to withdraw.