• 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

Cooper’s Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. Ray, No. 21S-CT-56, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 9, 2021).

February 15, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A belated notice of appeal needs to do more than restate the grounds for granting a discretionary appeal; an extraordinary compelling reason to restore the forfeited appeal must be stated.

Anderson v. State, 21S-CR-28, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 26, 2021).

February 1, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Before counsel’s appointment, a trial court must consider a defendant’s pro se motion, like a request for an early trial. After counsel’s appointment, this consideration is left to the trial court’s discretion

Fields v. State, 20A-CR-1799, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2021).

February 1, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Notwithstanding a waiver of appeal provision in a plea agreement, a defendant who was sentenced contrary to law is an eligible defendant permitted to seek a belated appeal pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2.

Tate v. State, 19S-LW-444, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).

February 1, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The record contained substantial evidence of both the torture and child-molest aggravators on which the jury could reasonably rely. However, because there was a third unchallenged aggravator, torture and child-molest aggravators notwithstanding, any error would not have altered the jury’s recommendation or the trial court’s decision to impose life without parole

B.R. v. State, 20A-JV-1203, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2021).

February 1, 2021 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

To prove constructive possession, the State must demonstrate that the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 110
  • Go to page 111
  • Go to page 112
  • Go to page 113
  • Go to page 114
  • 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