• 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

Wohlt v. Wohlt, No. 24S-DR-385, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2024).

November 25, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Property settlement agreement had no ambiguity when it used the word “all” to describe division of assets; both forgotten and remembered assets were included in that description so that the property division would be final.

Finnegan v. State, No. 24S-MI-68, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 5, 2024).

September 9, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

Statutory procedures for asserting the insanity defense in criminal proceedings do not apply in an indirect criminal contempt action because it is not a criminal case.

Grimes v. State, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2024).

July 1, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.

B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).

June 24, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.

Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Carmel, No. 23S-EX-129, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).

June 3, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, M. Massa

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly held that city ordinance was unreasonable and void because it threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on an energy company, which would in turn impact all of the energy company’s customers throughout Indiana.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • 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