• 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

Bunch v. State, No. 21A-CR-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2022).

April 11, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

The process for having a federal right to possess firearms restored following a conviction of a crime of domestic violence is tied to the state procedure for having said right restore; that procedure in Indiana is conducted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7.

Tippecanoe School Corp. v. Reynolds, No. 21A-CT-1482, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).

April 11, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Negligent supervision in sports is not a separate cause of action; an analysis of a coach’s individual actions related to supervising her athletes and the choices made are subsumed by a review of whether that coach was intentional or reckless in her conduct.

Yeary v. State, No. 21A-CR-1080, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 7, 2022).

April 11, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The plain language of the drug-induced homicide statute, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5, requires the State to prove the defendant’s conduct is both the proximate cause and the actual cause of the victim’s death, and while the jury is expected to rely on its collective common sense and knowledge acquired through everyday experiences, the trial court has a duty to define for the jury words of a technical or legal meaning normally not understood by jurors unversed in the law.

Fedij v. State, No. 21A-CR-1481, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 11, 2022).

April 11, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Unlike the labels on regulated pharmaceuticals, or warnings on products containing dangerous ingredients, nothing in the writing or symbols of cannabis-based products provide a detailed analysis of the products’ chemical compositions, their directions for use, or specific warnings from their misuse. Therefore, the market reports exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Rule 803(17)) does not appeal to the writing or symbols on a cannabis-based package.

Abbott v. State, No. 21S-PL-347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 29, 2022).

April 4, 2022 Filed Under: Civil, Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, S. David, Supreme

David, J. In Indiana, civil forfeiture actions typically proceed under one of two statutes: the general forfeiture statute or the racketeering forfeiture statute. Today, we consider whether the racketeering forfeiture statute permits a court to release, to the defendant, funds seized in a forfeiture action so the defendant can hire counsel in that same action. […]

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 70
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Go to page 73
  • Go to page 74
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 586
  • 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