The existence of an emergency order of protection issued in Illinois in favor of one party did not require the trial court to transfer the other party’s Indiana petition for protective order to Illinois under Ind. Code § 34-26-5-6(4).
T. Crone
Sargent v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2020).
While participation in a Purposeful Incarceration Program (PIP) may lead to a subsequent sentence modification, a request for a participation recommendation is not, in itself, a request for modification under Indiana Code Section 35-18-1-17.
Berg v. Berg, No. 19A-DC-3038, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2020).
Trial court improperly granted a T.R. 60(B) motion alleging that an account was omitted from a balance sheet used at mediation because it relied on inadmissible evidence from mediation.
Alvarez v. State, No. 19A-CR-1906, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2020).
A defendant is not entitled to credit for pretrial confinement if the defendant’s custody is a result charges with a different sovereign.
Freeman v. Timberland Home Center, Inc., No. 19A-CC-1889, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 29, 2020).
Preferred venue status of a county is determined when an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint; if the county where the complaint was filed is a preferred venue, transfer to another county based on venue is improper even if a third-party is later joined.