• 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. DeBoer

Olbera, et al. v. Sykes, No. 25A-JP-2005, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 30, 2026).

March 30, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

Marital presumption as legal parent rebutted by biological father of child as biological father did not relinquish his rights to legal parentage.

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.W., No. 24A-JT-3052, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2025).

December 8, 2025 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. DeBoer

In a termination of parental rights case, parents’ due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to compel DCS to disclose the names and contact information of child’s foster parents because that information could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In re E.K., No. 25A-JC-703, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2025).

October 20, 2025 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.

Brown v. Charles Sturdevant Post of the American Legion Post #46, No. 25A-PL-513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025).

October 6, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.

Ocampo v. State, No. 24A-CR-2785, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025).

September 2, 2025 Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

The legality of a K9’s interior sniff of a vehicle before probable cause has been established to conduct a search is governed by the “instinctive entry rule,” under which a K9’s instinctive entry into a vehicle does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as it is not directed, encouraged, or facilitated by officers.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs