• 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

Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).

June 26, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, P. Foley

Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.

Gierek v. Anonymous 1, No. 22A-CT-1225, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2023).

June 19, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant plaintiffs’ motions to certify a class as a preliminary determination under the Medical Malpractice Act.

Randall v. Woodson, No. 22A-PL-2830, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2023).

June 19, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Social Security Administration has exclusive authority over the issues of benefit misuse by representative payees and over the recovery of those misused funds; a trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Owen v. State, No. 21S-LW-333, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 8, 2023).

June 12, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

The record reflects that the statutory aggravators were supported by sufficient evidence and the jury was properly instructed; defendant was properly sentenced to life without parole.

Ind. Dept. of Ins. v. Doe, No. 22A-CT-1276, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2023).

June 5, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, M. Robb

An underlying act of medical malpractice is a necessary predicate and condition precedent to a medical credentialing malpractice claim.
Where the Patient’s Compensation Fund is not a party to a settlement agreement between the claimant and the provider and the court must consider the liability of the health care provider as “admitted and established,” the Fund is not precluded from making an independent determination and may dispute whether the underlying conduct is compensable under the Act. The Fund does not have an affirmative duty to intervene in settlement negotiations between a claimant and a provider or to address a claim for excess damages until the claim has been filed in court.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 53
  • Go to page 54
  • Go to page 55
  • Go to page 56
  • Go to page 57
  • 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