• 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

State v. N.B., No. 19A-JV-1659, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2020).

January 13, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

A juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a delinquency petition and waive a defendant to adult criminal court but does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a defendant over age twenty-one a delinquent child and enter a disposition.

Reust v. State, No. 18A-CR-2887, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2019).

December 30, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, B. Barteau

Landscaping at a new home construction site does not fall under the Indiana Home Improvement Fraud Statute, which requires that the consumer live in the dwelling at the time of the home improvement.

Johnson v. State, No. 19A-CR-975, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2019).

December 30, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Gaming Enforcement Agent unlawfully exceeded the scope of a pat down search by reaching into defendant’s pocket and removing a ball of powdered substance.

Buford v. State, No. 19A-CR-956, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2019).

December 30, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Criminal contempt for violation of a no contact order and ninety-day jail sentence was vacated on double jeopardy grounds because the State filed an invasion of privacy charge on the same day as the contempt hearing.

Butler v. State, No. 19A-MI-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2019).

December 30, 2019 Filed Under: Civil, Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

The trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s car because the 2018 amendments to Indiana’s civil-forfeiture scheme were procedural in nature and do not constitute an ex post facto law; defendant failed to establish that the seizure of the car was in any way improper.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 94
  • Go to page 95
  • Go to page 96
  • Go to page 97
  • Go to page 98
  • 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