• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Schultz v. S.P. Real Estate LLC, No. 25A-CT-165, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2025).

January 5, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissmann

Comparative fault does not reduce liability for intentional torts. Liability for an intentional tort turns on the tortfeasor’s deliberate choice to commit the act.

Spradlin v. State, No. 24A-CR-1724, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2025).

January 5, 2026 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

To sustain a conviction for Level 6 felony failure to make, keep or furnish records pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-48-4-14(a)(3), the State must prove that the missing records were legally required under Article 35-48.

Bosworth v. State, No. 24A-CR-2688, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2025).

January 5, 2026 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

While Indiana statutory authority provides that a search warrant shall be executed within ten days of issuance, a delay in executing a warrant is not unreasonable unless, at the time it is executed, probable cause no longer exists and the defendant demonstrates legal prejudice because of the delay.

Brooks v. USA Track & Field, Inc., No. 25S-PL-103, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

A party cannot amend their complaint after final judgment has been issued. T.R. 15(A) does not apply once a final judgment has been entered.

Taylor v. State, No. 25S-CR-349, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

A defendant must have the opportunity to personally question a witness to probe their recollection, test their reliability, expose their bias, and draw out favorable facts through cross-examination. When a trial court denies a defendant this constitutional right, the error requires reversal unless the State proves it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the State met its burden, reviewing courts consider several factors: the significance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case; whether that evidence was merely cumulative; whether it was corroborated or contradicted by other evidence; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the improperly admitted evidence.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 596
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs