• 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

C. Goff

Decker v. Star Financial Group, Inc., No. 22S-PL-305, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 21, 2023).

March 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Bank could not add an arbitration addendum to terms and conditions of the bank account because the phrase, “any term of this agreement” only allowed modification existing terms, not adding a new term.

US Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 22S-CT-264, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2023).

March 13, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, L. Rush, Supreme

The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.

Town of Linden v. Birge, No. 22S-PL-352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 7, 2023).

March 13, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

Flooding issues on caused by Town’s drainage plan are properly analyzed as a per se permanent taking and that case is remanded for the trial court to decide (1) whether the flooding here amounted to a substantial permanent physical invasion of the Property (including that portion lying within the drainage easement), and (2) for a final determination of damages.

Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).

March 6, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.

Young v. State, No. 22S-CR-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 13, 2022).

December 19, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

Evidence of guilt reviewed on appeal need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to pass muster. It is sufficient that a reasonable jury could have inferred that the defendant committed the crimes charged; the weighing of all the evidence and resolution of conflicts is left to the jury

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 21
  • 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