• 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

Appeals

Barrand v. Martin, No. 18A-JP-1796, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 1, 2019).

March 4, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The Court of Appeals urges all trial courts to “carefully consider the possible impact of SSR benefits when determining whether to provide a credit to a non-custodial parent for his or her child support obligation.”

Perkins v. Fillio, No. 18A-PL-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2019).

February 25, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

For a premises liability claim regarding a headbutting ram, trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether rams are dangerous as a class of animals and, if so, a genuine issue as to whether Defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the ram from causing harm to invitees.

Kelp v. State, No. 18A-CR-1719, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2019).

February 18, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Special Probation Rule 12 that prohibits a person convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography from visiting businesses that sell sexual devices or aids is unfairly broad as it could extend to drug stores.

Nicholson v. Lee, No.18A-CR-1371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2019).

February 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Gun owner was shielded from liability for failing to safely store and keep gun when the gun is procured by a crime and then later used to commit another crime.

In re Ma.H, No. 18A-JT-1296, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2019).

February 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May, M. Robb

The requirement that Father admit molesting child to complete sex offender treatment violates Father’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; the trial court’s reliance on his refusal to so admit as proof that his parental rights should be terminated violates his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 125
  • Page 126
  • Page 127
  • Page 128
  • Page 129
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 408
  • 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