• 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

Schoeff v. State, No. 23A-CR-02163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2024).

August 26, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: E. Tavitas, L. Weissmann, P. Mathias

While the Richardson actual-evidence test no longer applies to claims of substantive double jeopardy violations, it does apply to claims of procedural double jeopardy.

Perdue Farms, Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, No. 24S-PL-40, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2024).

August 19, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

Forum selection clause cannot be enforced against non-contracting employees for claims against them arising from the contract.

In re Paternity of E.B.K., No. 23A-JP-2316, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2024).

August 19, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, T. Crone

The thirty-seven-month time period between the temporary custody order and the permanent custody order was an extraordinary delay that prejudiced mother and violated her due process rights. Trial courts have a statutory duty under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-6 to expedite custody proceedings.

Frye v. State, No. 23A-CR-1691, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2024).

August 5, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The ability to consent is a unifying theme to the separate situations of proscribed conduct constituting Level 3 felony rape; a defendant should be able to ask the alleged victim questions about their shared sexual history to determine whether there is any basis by which defendant could defend themselves by arguing the alleged were consensual.

M.M. v. L.P., No. 23A-PO-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2024).

August 5, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, L. Weissmann

The trial court was not required to transfer a pending protection order case to the special judge handling parties’ post-dissolution matters when the protection order did not relate to any pending post-dissolution proceedings and did not impact parenting time.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 599
  • 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