• 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

D. Molter

Mellowitz v. Ball State University, No. 23S‐PL‐60, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2023).

November 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

Shielding post-secondary educational institutions from pandemic‐related class action claims is within the General Assembly’s legislative authority, not an unconstitutional taking, and does not unconstitutionally impair the school’s contract obligations to its students.

Davis v. State, No. 22S-CR-253, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 3, 2023)(opinion on rehearing).

October 10, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

When a defendant waives the right to pursue their sentence as part of a plea agreement, they may not pursue a direct appeal of their sentence even if they can prove they did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to do so. A defendant must seek to vacate their guilty plea in post-conviction relief.

Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund v. Morales, No. 23S‐CQ‐108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 25, 2023).

October 2, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Ind. Code 3-9-2-3 to -6 prohibits or otherwise limits corporate contributions to political action committees or other entities that engage in independent campaign-related expenditures.

State v. Lyons, No. 23S-CR-163, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

Before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice, or that the sanctioned party’s culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.

Harris v. State, No. 23S-CR-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, L. Rush

The jury in a habitual offender proceeding must be allowed to make the ultimate legal determination of whether the defendant has the status of habitual offender. Only evidence of the defendant’s alleged convictions is relevant to that determination. A defendant has no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • 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