• 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

Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, No. 22S‐PL‐338, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Abortion providers have standing to contest the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1 (2022) because the statute criminalizes their work, and so they face the sort of imminent, direct, personal injury. Indiana Constitution’s Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions. The Court reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction.

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

May 8, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.

M.H. v. State, No. 22S-JV-251, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2023).

April 24, 2023 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.

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.

  • « 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