• 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

Supreme

Brooks v. USA Track & Field, Inc., No. 25S-PL-103, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

A party cannot amend their complaint after final judgment has been issued. T.R. 15(A) does not apply once a final judgment has been entered.

Taylor v. State, No. 25S-CR-349, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

A defendant must have the opportunity to personally question a witness to probe their recollection, test their reliability, expose their bias, and draw out favorable facts through cross-examination. When a trial court denies a defendant this constitutional right, the error requires reversal unless the State proves it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the State met its burden, reviewing courts consider several factors: the significance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case; whether that evidence was merely cumulative; whether it was corroborated or contradicted by other evidence; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the improperly admitted evidence.

Elzey v. State, No. 24S-CR-436, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 20, 2025).

November 24, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

The Indiana State Public Defender must represent all indigent individuals who are confined in a penal facility in Indiana or committed to the Department of Correction due to a criminal conviction or delinquency adjudication. However, the Public Defender Statute, I.C. 33-40-1-2, and our post-conviction rules specifically Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), still enable SPD to exercise its discretion in agreeing to representation.

Anderson v. State, No. 25S-CR-294, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025).

November 17, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

A sentence is illegal if it is outside the prescribed statutory range or is unconstitutional. An appeal challenging an illegal sentence cannot be waived.

Monroe Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc., No. 25S-MI-293, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025).

November 17, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have statutory, inherent, or common law authority to reconsider its final order.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 174
  • 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