• 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

City of Marion v. London Witte Group, No. 20S-MI-00567, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 17, 2021).

June 21, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

The Indiana Supreme Court adopts the equitable tolling doctrine of adverse domination when intentional wrongdoing is alleged.

State v. Diego, 21S-CR-285, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2021).

June 14, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, S. David, Supreme

Police may not interrogate a person in custody without proper Miranda warnings or else the State risks having those custodial statements suppressed in a criminal trial. However, not every station house interview implicates Miranda. Miranda warnings are only required when a person is in custody; when a person’s’ freedom of movement is curtailed to a level associated with formal arrest and when he or she is under the same inherently coercive pressures in the police station as those at issue in Miranda v. Arizona.

State v. Timbs, 20S-MI-289, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 10, 2021).

June 14, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.

Koziski v. State, 20A-CR-1889, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2021).

June 7, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Multiple convictions based on separate provisions under the child-molesting statute should be analyzed using the double jeopardy test set forth in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) as opposed to Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020).

Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).

June 7, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, M. Massa, Supreme

The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 91
  • Go to page 92
  • Go to page 93
  • Go to page 94
  • Go to page 95
  • 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