• 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

Larkin v. State, 19A-CR-2705, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 09, 2020).

November 9, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

For the jury to receive an instruction on alleged lesser-included offense, the offense must either be an inherently or factually included offense to the principal charge and there must be a serious evidentiary dispute regarding the element that distinguishes the lesser offense from the principal charge. Moreover, a defendant must receive fair notice of the charge against which he must defend at trial.

Jones v. State, 20A-CR-664, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2020).

November 2, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

To prevent disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, it is not enough to show that the CI’s identity might be revealed. Rather, it is the State’s burden to prove that the CI’s identity would be revealed as a result of a face-to-face interview.

Ind. Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, No. 20S-MI-62, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 27, 2020).

November 2, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform property owner of the impending tax sale of the property by first sending notice by first class and certified mail to the address listed on the deed for the property, and then publishing notice. The auditor was not required to search its internal records for a better tax sale notice address.

Temme v. State, 20A-CR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2020).

October 26, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

Because Indiana has a statutory scheme for the award of credit time, the equitable, common law doctrine of “credit for time erroneously at liberty,” does not apply.

Watson v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).

October 26, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

While Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to habitual-offender retrials, the constitutional right to a speedy trial does.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 117
  • Go to page 118
  • Go to page 119
  • Go to page 120
  • Go to page 121
  • 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