• 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

Atkins v. Crawford County Clerk’s Office, No. 20A-MI-2160, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2021).

June 7, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Trial court improperly denied a motion to waive the filing fee when plaintiff filed a verified affidavit of indigency with documentation of her cash assets. If the trial court had any doubt about plaintiff’s indigency, the trial court could have waived the filing fee, and, upon a later discovery that the litigant has the means to pay, order reimbursement of the waived fee; or a trial court may hold a hearing to examine the litigant’s potential indigency.

In re Adoption of K.T., No. 20A-AD-2102, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2021).

June 7, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

The ongoing CHINS proceeding did not prohibit the trial court from dispensing with mother’s and father’s consents in the adoption proceeding.

Sawyer v. State, 20A-CR-1446, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2021).

May 24, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Indiana Code § 35-40-5-11.5, effective March 18, 2020, restricts a defendant’s ability to take the deposition of a child less than sixteen years of age who is the victim or alleged victim of a sex offense. Because the statute is procedural in nature, and because it conflicts with the Indiana Trial Rules, the Indiana Trial Rules govern and the provisions of the statute in conflict are a nullity.

Mosley v. State, 20A-CR-2094, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2021).

May 24, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissmann

A no-contact order cannot be issued to protect a deceased person and probation cannot be revoked based on violation of that void order.

AO Alfa-Bank v. Doe, No. 20A-MI-2352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2021).

May 24, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a motion to quash an out-of-state subpoena which had not been domesticated.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 92
  • Go to page 93
  • Go to page 94
  • Go to page 95
  • Go to page 96
  • 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