• 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

Frye v. State, No. 23A-CR-1691, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2024).

August 5, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The ability to consent is a unifying theme to the separate situations of proscribed conduct constituting Level 3 felony rape; a defendant should be able to ask the alleged victim questions about their shared sexual history to determine whether there is any basis by which defendant could defend themselves by arguing the alleged were consensual.

M.M. v. L.P., No. 23A-PO-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2024).

August 5, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, L. Weissmann

The trial court was not required to transfer a pending protection order case to the special judge handling parties’ post-dissolution matters when the protection order did not relate to any pending post-dissolution proceedings and did not impact parenting time.

Henderson v. State, No. 24A-CR-667, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2024).

July 29, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(c)(1) proscribes the application of alternative misdemeanor sentencing (AMS) to a second felony within three years when “the person has committed a prior unrelated felony for which judgment was entered as a conviction of a Class A misdemeanor.” The statute employs past tense, as opposed to prospective, terminology; anticipated AMS for a prior unrelated felony would not bar AMS in a current case.

Coonce v. State, No. 23A-CR-1920, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2024).

July 29, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, D. Kenworthy

Prior unrelated vehicular substance offenses used to support a habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement may be either felony or misdemeanor convictions.

In re Guardianship of Adducci, No. 23A-GU-2433, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 17, 2024).

July 22, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

FSSA had a right to intervene in guardianship because the spousal support order diverted money that would have otherwise been used to pay medical bills. The trial court could not increase spousal support because the state Medicaid statute requires a “fair hearing before the State agency” to determine if an allowance should be increased.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • 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