• 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

Juvenile

B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.

In re I.E., No. 23A-JC-2399, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, D. Kenworthy

When the permanency plan for a child adjudicated a CHINS provides for appointment of a guardian under Ind. Code 31-34-21-7.7, the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian. The trial judge cannot “open” the guardianship without a guardianship petition and notice.

In re Adoption of M.J.H., No. 23A-AD-2769, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2024).

June 10, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Ind. Code chapter 31-19-5, governing the putative father registry, applies where a mother does not consent to an adoption. The relevance of a mother’s execution of consent to an adoption is merely the timing for her to provide information about a putative father.

G.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-246, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 10, 2024).

April 15, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse. Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Ind. App. R. 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance.

A.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2024).

March 18, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs