• 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

Peters v. Quakenbush, No. 24A-PL-405, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2024).

September 16, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Mathias, R. Altice

The plain language of the other-jurisdiction provision of Indiana’s Sex and Violent Offender Act compels registration for individuals with out-of-state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations.

DeGrado v. DeGrado, No. 24A-DC-187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 3, 2024).

September 9, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Extracurricular expense payments are child support. Petition to modify child support put parent on notice that extracurricular expenses were at issue.

Anderson v. State, No. 23A-CR-02609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2024).

September 9, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Foley

The grand jury statutory framework does not mandate that the State submit a matter for deliberation as to whether to issue an indictment. The State need not identify or name the target of the grand jury proceeding and identify the crime that the target was alleged to have committed unless the grand jury proceeds to deliberate on whether to issue an indictment.

Seabolt, Dillard, Tyson, and Robinson v. State, No. 24S-PC-270, 24S-PC-271, 24S-PC-272, 24S-PC-273, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 20, 2024).

August 26, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter

Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.

In re Paternity of E.B.K., No. 23A-JP-2316, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2024).

August 19, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, T. Crone

The thirty-seven-month time period between the temporary custody order and the permanent custody order was an extraordinary delay that prejudiced mother and violated her due process rights. Trial courts have a statutory duty under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-6 to expedite custody proceedings.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 399
  • 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