• 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

Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., No. 49S02-1610-PL-532, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 12, 2016).

October 17, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Inmates had no private right of action to pursue wage claims against a privately owned company where they worked while inmates in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1601-LW-32, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 4, 2016).

October 11, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

The imposition of a sentence of life without parole was reversible error by the trial court because the sole aggravating factor supporting the sentence was not determined by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court concurred with defendant’s initial request, and in the interests of judicial economy, exercised their appellate prerogative and resentenced him to a total term of 88 years.

McKeen v. Turner, No. 53A05-1511-CT-2047, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2016).

October 11, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

“[A] plaintiff may raise any theories of alleged malpractice during litigation following the [Medical Review Panel] process if (1) the proposed complaint encompasses the theories, and (2) the evidence related to those theories was before the [Medical Review Panel].”

Sturdivant v. State, 08A02-1601-CR-186, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial courts are in the best position to assess the competency of criminal defendants and the knowingness and intelligence of waivers of the right to counsel, and that determination will only be reversed if it was clearly erroneous.

Bell v. State, No. 49S02-1609-CR-00501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2016).

October 3, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, S. David, Supreme

A trial court must consider a defendant’s ability to pay before entering a restitution order after hearing testimony of inability to pay without rebutting evidence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • Go to page 257
  • Go to page 258
  • Go to page 259
  • Go to page 260
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 587
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs