• 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

M. Bailey

In re D.H, No. 18A-JT-1861, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2019).

February 4, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The trial court’s termination of parental rights order must be reversed due to the State’s failure to give Mother the due process imparted to her by Ind. Code 31-35-2-4.5(d) (the right to have DCS move to dismiss a termination petition when it has not provided her with services that were substantial and material in relation to the reunification plan).

Ind. Family & Social Svcs. Admin. v. Patterson, No. 18A-PL-925, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2019).

January 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Mathias

Ind. Family & Social Svcs. Administration properly determined that the garnished portion of Medicaid recipient’s income should be included when determining his portion of the cost of his care.

In re Z.B. v. Ind. Dept. Child Svcs., No. 18A-JT-318, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2018).

August 6, 2018 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

A CASA has the statutory authority to independently prosecute a petition to terminate parental rights when DCS opposes termination.

Hunter v. State, No. 43A03-1711-CR-2633, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2018).

May 21, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

When defendant violates a condition of bail, the court may revoke bail, but may not impose a punitive contempt sanction unless defendant’s conduct affects the dignity or operation of the court.

Yates v. Hites, No. 44A03-1710-CT-2459, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2018).

May 21, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The trial court abused its discretion when it gave the sudden emergency jury instruction with no evidence to support it. Because the sudden emergency instruction was given and emphasized in closing argument, a new trial is warranted.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 25
  • 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