Appellate courts will affirm a civil commitment if, considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting it, without weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find the necessary elements proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Gluys v. State, No. 25A-CR-1488, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2026).
“Harassment” for purposes of the crime of invasion of privacy is based on the definition found in Indiana Code section 34-6-2-51.5.
Indiana Land Trust #3082 and Omar and Haitham Abuzir as Trustees v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission et al., No. 25S-PL-141, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2026).
The Indiana Tort Claims Act establishes certain parameters to determine liability for negligent acts or omissions on the part of government employees and grants substantial immunity for conduct that falls within the scope of the employee’s employment.
Shabazz v. State, No. 25S-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2026).
To show good cause under Interim Rule 14(C) for remote testimony in a criminal trial, the State must present case-specific evidence that allowing a particular witness to testify remotely is necessary to prevent a concrete and substantial harm that would otherwise likely occur and that could not be adequately addressed if the witness were to testify in person.
Wilson v. State, No. 25A-CR-1542, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2026).
There must be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual driving behavior before a reasonable suspicion arises that a motorist who is merely making jerky body movements is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.