• 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

J. Baker

In re D.B., No. 49A02-1501-JC-48, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, J. Baker

Child’s absent, out-of-state father should be presumed to be a fit and capable parent unless the state proves otherwise.

McElfresh v. State, No. 32A01-1411-CR-514, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2015).

August 14, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Defendant’s letter to victim’s mother, truthfully stating that victim could face legal consequences for lying under oath in his case, did not support conviction for attempted obstruction of justice. And because his letter did not actually reach the victim in violation of no-contact order, it could not support invasion of privacy but only lesser-included offense of attempted invasion of privacy.

Taylor v. Taylor, No. 49A04-1502-DR-58, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2015).

August 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, J. Baker

“[A]fter a relocation notice is filed, if a party seeks a modification of an existing child support order that party must also file a petition to modify child support.”

Young v. Davis, No. 71A04-1501-CT-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2015).

August 7, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The voluntary dismissal of the governmental entities did not constitute a “judgment” for purposes of ITCA, and so plaintiffs could continue their lawsuit against the government employee individually.

Cox v. State, No. 27A02-1412-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).

July 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Amelioration doctrine did not apply to defendant’s sentence because the legislature clearly stated in Ind. Code 1-1-5.5-21(b) that it did not intend the amelioration doctrine to apply.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 40
  • 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