• 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

Ward v. Carter, No. 46A03-1607-PL-1685, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The Department of Correction is required to promulgate rules pursuant to the Administrative Rules and Procedure Act when changing its execution protocol, and its failure to do so means that the changed protocol is void and without effect.

Pollard v. State, No. 36A01-1603-CR-659, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2017).

May 30, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

An inmate who obtains a bachelor’s degree may not “bank” the earned credit time to be used toward a future incarceration due to a parole violation.

Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs. v. J.D., No. 71A03-1611-JC-2627, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2017).

May 30, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

In a CHINS case, the testimony of three physicians that child’s injuries were non-accidental and indicative of child abuse, plus establishing that time of his birth until his removal child was continuously in his parents’ care, established the elements of the Presumption Statute in order to shift the burden of production to the parents.

Dvorak v. State, No. 53A01-1604-CR-923, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2017).

May 23, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

In order to toll the statute of limitations in a criminal case, an individual must perform a “positive act” to conceal the fact that an offense has been committed.

Gonzalez v. State, No. 33A04-1612-MI-2807, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2017).

May 23, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Forfeiture order was reversed when the trial court inferred from defendant’s presence in the vehicle that he was a co-conspirator with the other passengers for dealing in narcotics when there was no additional evidence of a nexus between defendant’s forfeited money and dealing in narcotics.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 163
  • Go to page 164
  • Go to page 165
  • Go to page 166
  • Go to page 167
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 400
  • 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