• 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

N. Vaidik

Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).

June 26, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, P. Foley

Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.

Tutt v. Evansville Police Dept., No. 23A-MI-1723, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).

February 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Neither APRA, nor Title 9, authorizes a fee to inspect an accident report.

Ind. Repertory Theatre, Inc. v. Cincinnati Cas. Co., No. 21A-CP-2848, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2023).

February 13, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

COVID-19 virus particles do not cause physical loss or damage to property so as to qualify as a covered loss under an insurance policy.

Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. Vangundy, No. 22A-PL-1499, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2023).

January 23, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, P. Riley

Defendant waived his appeal of the default judgment by failing to file a T.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the default judgment; a motion to correct error did not preserve the issue.

In re Guardianship of Weber v. Weber, No. 21A-GU-2680, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2022).

January 3, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

After trial court granted spouse’s spousal support for Medicaid purposes, trial court properly allowed Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) to intervene; FSSA was entitled to relief from judgment because the facts did not support spousal maintenance.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • 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