• 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

McGrath v. State, No. 49A04-1610-CR-2270, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2017).

July 31, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, J. Kirsch

Probable cause to obtain a search warrant to use thermal imaging technology must be based on evidence that corroborates a tip that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring at a place, and not solely on the training and experience of law enforcement officers.

In re Paternity of G.G.B.W., No. 49A04-1611-JP-2474, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2017).

July 31, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

When the Agreed Decree of Paternity requires that Child be vaccinated based on her school’s requirements and that Mother is in contempt for submitting the religious objection form to circumvent the parties’ agreement, there is a substantial change in Mother’s ability to communicate and cooperate with Father in advancing Child’s welfare and the trial court should modify legal custody of Child for the limited purpose of making medical decisions concerning vaccinations.

McGuire v. State, No. 09S02-1707-CR-491, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 21, 2017).

July 24, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Per Curiam, Supreme

Trial court must resentence defendant who was sentenced to forty years imprisonment after entering a guilty plea to one count of felony child molesting when the correct statutory sentencing range was twenty to fifty years, not thirty to fifty years.

A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, No. 49A02-1610-MH-2286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).

July 24, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

In a mental health commitment, if the respondent is not present at the hearing, the trial court’s determination of whether it should waive the respondent’s presence must be made at the outset of the hearing using evidence establishing that the respondent’s presence would be injurious to his mental health or well-being.

P.S. v. T.W., No. 32A01-1610-PO-2426, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).

July 24, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Trial court was not required to apprise defendant of all possible penalties for violating the protective order and did not violate his due process by requiring GPS monitoring.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 241
  • Page 242
  • Page 243
  • Page 244
  • Page 245
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 602
  • 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