• 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

Neal v. Austin, No. 49A02-1404-DR-225__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2014).

November 6, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 “necessitates that where the most recent order establishing a child support obligation was issued after June 30, 2012, the child must file a petition for educational needs before the child becomes nineteen years of age.”

Swallow v. State, No. 89A01-1401-CR-24, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).

October 30, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Special prosecutor was not required when defense counsel joined the prosecutor’s office as a deputy, since adequate steps were taken to insure that the former defense counsel had no communications of any sort with other members of the prosecutor’s office about defendant’s case.

LBM Realty, LLC, v. Mannia, No. 71A03-1402-PL-66, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).

October 30, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

“Indiana should hereby adopt the largely case-by-case approach, finding that a tenant’s liability to the landlord’s insurer for damage-causing negligence depends on the reasonable expectations of the parties to the lease as ascertained from the lease as a whole and any other admissible evidence.”

In re I.B., No. 82A05-1402-AD-65, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014).

October 30, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

A prospective adoptive parent’s prior conviction was not dispositive (Ind. Code § 31-19-11-1) and the children were entitled to an individualized determination of their best interests.

Gallien v. State, No. 22A01-1402-PC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).

October 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. Barnes

Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 248
  • Go to page 249
  • Go to page 250
  • Go to page 251
  • Go to page 252
  • 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