• 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

Powell v. State, No. 19S-CR-527, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 18, 2020).

August 24, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

While Indiana’s attempted-murder statute contains no clear unit of prosecution, the multiple shots defendant fired—despite their proximity in space and time—amount to two chargeable offenses based on his dual purpose of intent to kill both victims.

Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

June 29, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, S. David, Supreme

Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.

Payne v. State, No. 20S-CR-313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 18, 2020).

May 26, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

When there is no conflict in expert opinion that a defendant is legally insane, the State must present other probative evidence from which to infer the defendant’s sanity.

Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield, No. 20S-CT-88, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 3, 2020).

March 9, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

Courts should determine if a landowner has a duty based on whether the defendant knew or had reason to know of any present and specific contemporaneous evidence that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the probability or likelihood of imminent harm.

S.H. v. D.W., No. 19S-PO-118, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).

February 3, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

The Protection Order Act does not permit the reissuance, renewal, or extension of the protective order when there has been a single episode of physical violence with no follow-up act, no threat that the violence will recur, and no other reasonable grounds to believe there is present intent to harm.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 19
  • 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