• 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

Arkla Industries, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., No. 87A01-1709-CC-2140, ,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2018).

March 12, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Defendant did not waive transfer to a preferred venue when the case was removed to federal court; trial court was required to transfer the case to defendant’s preferred venue upon remand to state court.

Payne v. State, No. 79A02-1707-CR-1606, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).

March 5, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, R. Pyle

State must authenticate defendant’s signature on plea agreement entered in prior violent felony in order sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by serious violent felon.

McCoy v. State, No. 10A05-1703-CR-681, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).

March 5, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court at sentencing may designate a defendant as a credit restricted felon only if that person has been convicted of one or more of serious sex-related crimes that allow for such designation.

Hogan v. State, No. 71A05-1702-CR-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).

March 5, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

In order to place a defendant in Purposeful Incarceration, the trial court must state in the Abstract of Judgment that, after successful completion of an appropriate therapeutic program, the court will consider a petition to modify defendant’s sentence.

Wamsley v. Tree City Village, No. 16A01-1706-CT-1355__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).

March 5, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 212
  • Go to page 213
  • Go to page 214
  • Go to page 215
  • Go to page 216
  • 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