• 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

Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.

Hancz-Barron v. State, No. 22S-LW-310, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

To recommend LWOP, the jury must (1) find the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravator exists, (2) provide a special verdict form for each aggravating circumstance alleged, and (3) find that any mitigating circumstances that exist are outweighed by the aggravating circumstance or circumstances. If those three steps are satisfied and the jury recommends LWOP, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the crime(s), consecutive life sentences for each murder victim does not render the sentence disproportionate.

Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2024).

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.

B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.

In re I.E., No. 23A-JC-2399, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, D. Kenworthy

When the permanency plan for a child adjudicated a CHINS provides for appointment of a guardian under Ind. Code 31-34-21-7.7, the filing of a guardianship petition and notice of the petition and hearing are statutory prerequisites for appointment of a permanent guardian. The trial judge cannot “open” the guardianship without a guardianship petition and notice.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Page 35
  • Page 36
  • Page 37
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 605
  • 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