• 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. May

In re the Civil Commitment of L.J., No. 18A-MH-152, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2018).

October 22, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

A blanket CB order approving all recommendations and findings of a magistrate, commissioner and/or referee does not make a magistrate, commissioner and/or referees’ orders final.

Hummel v. State, No. 75A03-1710-PC-2449, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2018).

September 10, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement

Schmitt v. State, No. 83A04-1711-CR-2720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2018

September 10, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.

Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).

August 27, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May, P. Mathias

Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.

ONB Ins. Group, Inc. v. Estate of Mengel, No. 40A01-1707-CT-1513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 25, 2018).

July 30, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

This case uses the Goodwin/Rogers analysis for a negligence case that does not involve premise liability with third-party acts. When the broad type of plaintiffs are motorists, the defendants are an insurance agency and its agent, and the type of harm as a multi-vehicle collision caused by faulty brakes on a large tractor-trailer, defendants owe no common law duty to plaintiffs

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 34
  • 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