• 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

Doe v. Carmel Operator, LLC, No. 21S-CT-15, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2020).

January 19, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Equitable estoppel can be applied only if three elements are shown: lack of knowledge, reliance, and prejudicial effect. The Court declines to adopt alternative theories for equitable estoppel.

Allen v. State, 20S-XP-506, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2020).

December 28, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

When faced with a permissive expungement petition, trial court should engage in a two-step process when considering a petition for expungement. First, a court must determine whether the conviction is eligible for expungement under the statute. If the conviction is ineligible, the inquiry ends there. But if the court determines that the conviction is eligible for expungement, it must then collect enough information to determine whether it should grant or deny the petition.

Wisdom v. State, 20A-CR-931, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2020).

December 28, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

To authenticate under Evidence Rule 901, social-media evidence turns on whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding it is what the claimant purports it to be. And while the source of the evidence may sometimes be needed, authentication depends on context.

Bradbury v. State, 20A-PC-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2020).

December 28, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissman, N. Vaidik

Trial counsel were ineffective when they stipulated to fact of which there was a serious evidentiary dispute, and when they failed to seek a lesser-included instruction that would have been available absent the stipulation.

Bunnell v. State, 20A-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2020).

December 21, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

When probable cause for a search warrant is premised solely on law enforcement’s detection of the odor of raw marijuana, the assertion must be based on more than personal belief: the affiant–officer must provide some information about the detecting officers’ relevant “training” or “experience” that led to the ultimate conclusion.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 113
  • Go to page 114
  • Go to page 115
  • Go to page 116
  • Go to page 117
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 597
  • 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