• 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

A.M. v. State, No. 19S-JV-603, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).

November 18, 2019 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

A court should evaluate a juvenile’s claim of ineffective counsel in a delinquency disposition-modification hearing by using a due process standard; it should consider counsel’s overall performance to determine if the child received a fundamentally fair hearing resulting in a disposition that served his best interests.

Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., No. 19S-PL-37, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).

November 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

“Under the equitable estoppel doctrine, a party’s conduct—even relating to the repair of goods—may toll a contractually agreed-upon limitations period when that conduct is of a sufficient affirmative character to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or mislead the other party into inaction.”

C.S. v. State, No. 19S-JV-137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 1, 2019).

October 7, 2019 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, S. David, Supreme

Ind. Admin. Rule 14(B) permits remote participation in juvenile disposition-modification hearings where the parties have agreed or where the court issues a good cause order based on the factors listed in the rule including the child’s best interest.

Easler v. State, No. 19S-CR-324, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2019).

September 23, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

When a party requests a hearing on possible juror bias or misconduct, after voir dire and selection but before the jury is sworn, a trial court should hold such a hearing if the party demonstrates some relevant basis for that bias or misconduct.

Bedolla v. State, No. 19S-PC-328, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2019).

June 3, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The post-conviction court abused its discretion in closing evidence without allowing counsel to make an offer of proof and to secure a deposition of a witness who could help prove the defendant had been wrongly convicted of murder.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • 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