• 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

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, No. 49S02-1604-MI-175, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 11, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Indianapolis’ non-smoking ordinance does not violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

In re Custody of M.B., No. 65S04-1604-MI-00180, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 12, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

“[A] third-party, who seeks to commence an independent child custody action under Indiana Code § 31-17-2-3(2), may properly do so in circuit court, but if a CHINS case is pending when the custody action is filed and no exception to the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction is applicable, the circuit court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction and stay any proceedings on the custody action until final disposition of the CHINS proceeding.”

Daugherty v. State, No. 89A01-1510-PC-1532, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Apr. 5, 2016).

April 11, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Consecutive sentences for two counts of SVF in possession of a firearm did not constitute a double enhancement,; but they exceeded the statutory cap for a “single episode of criminal conduct.”

Ackerman v. State, No. 49S00-1409-CR-770, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Apr. 5, 2016).

April 11, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Under the particular circumstances, autopsy report was not prepared for “primary purpose” of future investigation or prosecution, and therefore was not testimonial hearsay.

Ammons v. State, No. 45S03-1604-CR-167, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Apr. 5, 2016).

April 11, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Requiring an Indiana resident, who recently moved to Indiana from another state, to register as a sex offender is not an ex post facto violation when offender was already required to register in another jurisdiction.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 279
  • Go to page 280
  • Go to page 281
  • Go to page 282
  • Go to page 283
  • 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