9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dustin Lee Jarrell v. Billie Jo Jarrellgreen1 sentence2018Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186, 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; In re Marriage of Harpenau, 17 N.E.3d 342, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Tina M. Harpenau v. Robin P. Harpenaugreen1 sentence2018Jarrell v. Jarrell, 5 N.E.3d 1186, 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; In re Marriage of Harpenau, 17 N.E.3d 342, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Julie C. v. Andrew C.green2 sentences2012See Tr. p. 3, 43-44, 98; I.C. §§ 31-17-2-8(1), -8(3), -8(4); Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249, 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that a child’s desire for an increased relationship with a noncustodial parent can properly be 10 viewed as a substantial change in the best interests factors and taking into account that the trial court may have obtained further evidence of this through in-camera interviews). 2012See Tr. p. 3, 43-44, 98; I.C. §§ 31-17-2-8(1), -8(3), -8(4); Julie C. v. Andrew C., 924 N.E.2d 1249, 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that a child’s desire for an increased relationship with a noncustodial parent can properly be 10 viewed as a substantial change in the best interests factors and taking into account that the trial court may have obtained further evidence of this through in-camera interviews). | 1 | 1 |
Trout v. Troutgreen1 sentence2011See Trout v. Trout, 638 N.E.2d 1306, 1307-08 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ("A timely objection is a prerequisite to appellate review. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Morgangreen2 sentences1993Richardson, 612 N.E.2d 157, 161 (Hoffman, J., dissenting) ("Filing contested modification proceedings should dissolve a joint custody award and return the parties and the custody matters to status quo ante, requiring a custody determination under the best interests standard”). 1993Richardson, 612 N.E.2d 157, 161 (Hoffman, J., dissenting) ("Filing contested modification proceedings should dissolve a joint custody award and return the parties and the custody matters to status quo ante, requiring a custody determination under the best interests standard"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Traci Nelson v. Tony Nelson
green
2 sentences2017Nelson, supra, 10 N.E.3d at 1288 . 2017Nelson, supra, 10 N.E.3d at 1288 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Baxendale v. Raich
green
1 sentence2014Baxendale, 878 N.E.2d at 1256 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M. and El.M., E.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
green
1 sentence2014Despite this tension, the court stated that children “have a paramount need for permanency, which we have called ‘a central consideration in determining the child’s best interests.’” Id. at 3 Mother and Father argue in part that the best interests standard is unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re the Guardianship of B.H.
green
1 sentence2013Grandfather contends that “it was not in [D.M.’s] best interest to be taken from a stable home where she was flourishing and thrust unceremoniously into her biological mother’s home without so much as a brief transition period.” Id. 12 Mother argues that Grandfather offers no legal support for his argument, that his argument is premised upon the “general best interest” standard commonly applied by the courts in custody disputes, and the best interests analysis was prohibited in this case because Grandfather failed to meet the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of the natural parent | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stevenson v. Stevenson
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Indiana Department of Public Welfare v. Guardianship of McIntyre
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lamb v. Wenning
green
2 sentences1993This contention was rejected by implication in Lamb, 600 N.E.2d 96 , with its articulation of a standard for the modification of physical custody without terminating joint legal custody. 1993This contention was rejected by implication in Lamb, 600 N.E.2d 96 , with its articulation of a standard for the modification of physical custody without terminating joint legal custody. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.