• 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

E. Tavitas

Davis-Brumley v. Fair Oaks Farms, LLC, No. 23A-CT-1610, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 29, 2024).

March 4, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Wrongful death action was not timely filed when plaintiff petitioned to be appointed as special administratrix of the estate within the two-year filing period of the Wrongful Death Act, but the petition was not granted until after that period elapsed.

In re N.E., No. 23A-JC-996, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2024).

February 5, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

A litigant’s failure to appear at a hearing should be addressed using the indirect contempt procedure which requires a rule to show cause and a hearing. The trial court erred by relying upon information obtained from the drug testing facility by its court reporter without her testimony under oath.

Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).

November 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”

Marion Superior Court Probation Dept. v. Trapuzzano, No. 23A-CT-61, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2023).

November 20, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

The probation department has quasi-judicial immunity from liability.

Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).

October 23, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, N. Vaidik, P. Foley

When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.

  • « 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 15
  • 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