• 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

P. Mathias

Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind., Ky., Inc. v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., No. 24A-PL-2467, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2025).

August 11, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

The right to an abortion that is protected under Article 1, Section 1 requires the abortion to be a necessary procedure to protect the woman’s life or to protect her from a serious health risk, and requires the determination that an abortion is necessary to be a reasonable medical judgment. The statutory Hospital Requirement also does not impair the constitutional right to an abortion.

White v. State, No. 24A-CR-2592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 25, 2025).

June 30, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Felix, P. Mathias

Our Supreme Court’s double jeopardy analysis in Powell applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or shown discrete, prosecutable acts under identical statutory language, and our Supreme Court’s analysis in Wadle applies where the question is whether the State has alleged or used the same evidence to show violations of different statutory language. However, in certain circumstances, both Wadle and Powell may apply.

Jones v. State, No. 24A-CR-1102, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2025).

April 14, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

The right to counsel under Article 1, Section 13 attaches at the point of arrest by an Indiana official.

England v. Siebe, No. 24A-CT-497, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2024).

December 9, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Trial court properly granted TR 21(B)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when plaintiff’s claim fell under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant’s sibling corporation and the Act defines “employer” to expressly include “a parent corporation and its subsidiaries,” which “shall each be considered joint employers” of the injured employee.

M.S. v. State, 24A-JV-715, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2024).

December 9, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

The exception to the dangerous possession of a firearm statute, parental permission to possess, is an affirmative defense and not an element of the offense.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 29
  • 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