• 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

Wadle v. State, No. 18A-CR-1465, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2019).

March 4, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Convictions for leaving the scene of an accident, OWI causing serious bodily injury, OWI endangering a person, and operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.08 or more, constitute double jeopardy under both the actual evidence test and common-law prohibitions.

Fields v. Safway Group Holdings, LLC, No. 18A-CT-314, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2019).

January 28, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May, P. Mathias

Trial court properly granted TR 60(B)(8) motion because equitable considerations can constitute the exceptional circumstances required to grant the motion.

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.

J.K. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 18A-JT-529, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 7, 2018).

September 10, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Admonishes DCS for its failure to afford litigants their due process rights and reminds the trial courts of their duty to ensure that litigants’ due process rights are not violated.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • 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