• 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

R. Altice

Shakur v. Hendrix, No. 23A-CT-1564, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 18, 2024).

April 22, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

DOC inmate’s Section 1983 claims were limited to damages that accrued within the 24-month window before the suit was filed; DOC conduct was not a single, continuous episode of harm.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. NIBCO, Inc., No. 23A-PL-1343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2024).

February 26, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

When relief was not available under T.R. 60(B), the trial court could not reinstate the case because it failed to have a T.R. 41(E) hearing before the dismissal.

Wilson v. Wilson, No. 23A-DC-1384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2023).

November 6, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

Father’s child support was not offset by adult disabled daughter’s monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefit.

Turner v. State, No. 22A-CR-2404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 8, 2023).

August 14, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

An evidentiary harpoon occurs when the State deliberately places inadmissible evidence before the jury to prejudice the jurors against the defendant. Where an evidentiary harpoon has been introduced at trial, the reviewing court requires a high level of assurance that the irregularity did not affect the verdict before it will affirm the judgment. It is not enough that the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence; the reviewing court must be able to say with certainty that the improper testimony did not influence the verdict.

Rubendall v. Community Hospital of Anderson & Madison Cnty., No. 22A-CT-2223, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2023).

February 7, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

Damages for “loss of privacy,” resulting in “embarrassment, stress, and anxiety” must satisfy the requirements for emotional distress damages. Defendant broadcasting private health information via short-wave radio airwaves does not meet the publication element for public disclosure of private facts.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 11
  • 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