• 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

Crowley v. State, No. 21A-MI-2064, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2022).

May 16, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

If another state previously subjected a pre-SORA offender to a registration requirement, requiring him to register in Indiana is not punitive. It is irrelevant where or when the conviction occurred, as long as another state imposed a lawful registration obligation on the offender and SORA does not so significantly alter that obligation to result in added punishment.

Israel v. Israel, No. 21A-DC-1063, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2022).

May 16, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Non-disparagement clause in divorce decree amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it forbade the parties from making disparaging remarks about the other when outside the presence of the child.

Reyes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2646, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2022).

May 9, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.

Cole v. Cole, No. 21A-MI-2415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 28, 2022).

May 2, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Under the Hague Convention, interests of children in matters relating to their custody are best served when decisions are made in the child’s country of habitual residence. Determination of a child’s habitual residence is fact-intensive and varies with the circumstances of each case.

B.M. v. A.J, No. 21A-PO-2290, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 29, 2022).

May 2, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Trial court judge’s statements throughout protection order hearing demonstrate that judge failed to preside over the hearing as a neutral, impartial decision maker and violated defendants’ due process rights.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • Go to page 48
  • Go to page 49
  • Go to page 50
  • Go to page 51
  • 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