• 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

Schaadt v. State, No. 33A05-1409-CR-428, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Savings clause for 2014 penal reforms does not violate the Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Grant v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., No. 49A05-1404-MF-139, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Plaintiff improperly attempted to circumvent the trial court’s T.R. 41 ruling by filing a new complaint raising identical legal and factual issues.

Jackson v. State, No. 34A01-1409-CR-455, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2015).

April 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Najam

Probation condition to report within forty-eight hours an arrest or charge for a “new criminal offense” was ambiguous as to whether it applied to an arrest or charge for an offense committed before the probationary period began; holds the ambiguity must be construed against the State, so that the reporting condition did not include arrests or charges for offenses committed before probation began.

In re J.W., Jr., No. 82A04-1408-JT-380, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 25, 2015).

March 26, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

“Indiana Code Section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A)(iii) simply requires the DCS to demonstrate compliance with the statutory waiting period—namely, that a child has been removed from a parent for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months immediately prior to the termination hearing. That statute does not condition the waiting period on whether the DCS provided or otherwise made available any type of services to the parent.”

Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., No. 27A02-1407-CT-526, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 25, 2015).

March 26, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

The bar owed its patrons a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect them from foreseeable criminal attacks of third parties.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 235
  • Go to page 236
  • Go to page 237
  • Go to page 238
  • Go to page 239
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 404
  • 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