9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Paternity of Winklergreen2 sentences2014See Hughes v. Rogusta, 830 N.E.2d 898, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that the custody modification standard did not apply where the father did not acquiesce in the mother’s custody but immediately filed to establish paternity and determine custody after the mother moved out); In re Paternity of Winkler, 725 N.E.2d 124, 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a custody modification standard applied when the mother had custody of an out-of-wedlock child for twelve 3 years because “the same concerns about stability and continuity present in sole and joint custody modifications are present”). 2006We found that although there was no legal initial custody determination, the custody modification standard was appropriate because the interest in the child's stability still applied as the father had long acquiesced to the mother's physical custody of the child. 725 N.E.2d at 128 . | 2 | 3 |
Marriage of Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyckgreen2 sentences2008The Court of Appeals applied the new chapter, Baxendale, 866 N.E.2d at 336 , consistent with its prior holding that "an amendment to a custody modification statute is the controlling authority for a custody modification hearing taking place after the amendment's effective date irrespective of whether the custody modification petition was filed before the amendment’s effective date.” Wiggins v. Davis, 737 N.E.2d 437, 440 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyck, 661 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)). 2000See Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyck, 661 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
Hughes v. Rogustagreen2 sentences2014See Hughes v. Rogusta, 830 N.E.2d 898, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that the custody modification standard did not apply where the father did not acquiesce in the mother’s custody but immediately filed to establish paternity and determine custody after the mother moved out); In re Paternity of Winkler, 725 N.E.2d 124, 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a custody modification standard applied when the mother had custody of an out-of-wedlock child for twelve 3 years because “the same concerns about stability and continuity present in sole and joint custody modifications are present”). 2006In Hughes, this court found no acquiescence where there was no prior court determination concerning custody, and the father immediately filed to establish paternity and determine custody after the mother moved out of the family residence with the child. 830 N.E.2d at 901 . | 1 | 2 |
Kevin Martin v. Hon. Hugh Huntgreen1 sentence2020See Martin, 130 N.E.3d at 137 (failure to make a cogent argument results in waiver of the issue for appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
Cunningham v. Cunnninghamgreen1 sentence2017See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 787 N.E.2d 930, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
In Re The Paternity of J.T. and I.T., Minor Children and In Re The Support of C.R.T., Minor Child R.A.P., Mother v. C.D.T., Fathergreen1 sentence2013In re Paternity of J.T., 988 N.E.2d 398, 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Browell v. Bagbygreen1 sentence2008But see Browell v. Bagby, 875 N.E.2d 410, 412 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), reh’g denied (“As a general rule, the law in place at the time an action is commenced governs." (quoting Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
F.M., Mother v. N.B., Father
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 1038 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Marriage of Kondamuri v. Kondamuri
green
1 sentence2015Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d at 945 (citing In re Paternity of Winkler, 725 N.E.2d 124, 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Baxendale v. Raich
green
1 sentence2008The Court of Appeals applied the new chapter, Baxendale, 866 N.E.2d at 336 , consistent with its prior holding that "an amendment to a custody modification statute is the controlling authority for a custody modification hearing taking place after the amendment's effective date irrespective of whether the custody modification petition was filed before the amendment’s effective date.” Wiggins v. Davis, 737 N.E.2d 437, 440 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyck, 661 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wiggins v. Davis
green
1 sentence2008The Court of Appeals applied the new chapter, Baxendale, 866 N.E.2d at 336 , consistent with its prior holding that "an amendment to a custody modification statute is the controlling authority for a custody modification hearing taking place after the amendment's effective date irrespective of whether the custody modification petition was filed before the amendment’s effective date.” Wiggins v. Davis, 737 N.E.2d 437, 440 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyck, 661 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.1996)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.