• 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

L. Rush

T.D. v. State, No. 23S-JV-110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2023).

October 10, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

When a court fails to confirm or secure a waiver as required by the Juvenile Waiver Statute, Trial Rule 60(B) is the appropriate avenue for a juvenile to challenge their agreed delinquency adjudication. Because the judgment is voidable, rather than void, when the Juvenile Waiver Statute is violated, Rule 60(B)(8) is the proper vehicle for a juvenile to collaterally attack their adjudication.

Performance Service, Inc. v. Randolph Eastern School Corp., No. 23S-CP-59, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 28, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

School corporation’s contract was void because the school corporation exceeded its authority by investing money in a project to earn a financial return.

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.

Miller v. Patel, No. 22S-CT-371, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).

July 3, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

Convictions entered after a guilty plea have the same preclusive effect in subsequent litigation as those entered after jury or court verdicts.

Hayko v. State, No. 23S-CR-13, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2023).

June 26, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

To lay a proper foundation for the admission of opinion testimony under Evidence Rule 608(a), the proponent must establish that the witness’s opinion is both rationally based on their personal knowledge and would be helpful to the trier of fact.

  • « 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 27
  • 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