• 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

Means v. State, No. 23S-CR-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).

February 7, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

After the Court of Appeals accepts a discretionary interlocutory appeal, it may later dismiss the appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds, although its general reluctance to do so is appropriate. In addition, orders in limine are eligible for discretionary interlocutory review.

Doroszko v. State, No. 23S-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).

February 7, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

Pursuant to TR 47(D), trial courts must permit parties or their counsel to question prospective jurors directly. The trial court may also examine the jurors. As part of its own examination, the court may, but does not have to, include questions the parties submit to the court in writing. If the court elects to examine the prospective jurors, it is within its discretion to decide whether its examination or the parties’ examination will occur first, but whenever the trial court examines the prospective jurors, it must allow the parties an opportunity to supplement the court’s inquiry by posing their own additional questions directly to the prospective jurors.

Mastellone v. Young Men’s Christian Assoc. of Greater Indianapolis, No. 21A-CT-1720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2022).

June 27, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter

After entering judgment, pursuant to Trial Rule 59, a trial court cannot set aside the judgment without stating specific reasons.

Blattert, Jr. v. State, No. 21A-CR-1082, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 15, 2022).

June 20, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to child abuse; protecting children from physical abuse is a compelling governmental interest and prosecution is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. To that end, Indiana offers the parental privilege as a defense to battery and similar crimes rather than completely banning the practice of corporal punishments. This accommodates religious practices which require reasonable corporal punishment.

State v. Pemberton, No. 21A-CR-668, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2022).

April 4, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter, M. May

Absent specific exceptions outlined by our legislature in other statutes, acts that would be criminal offenses if committed by adults are defined by Indiana law as delinquent acts when committed by individuals under age eighteen, and Indiana law gives exclusive jurisdiction of delinquency proceedings to juvenile courts.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • 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