• 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

Shantel Waggoner, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Elmer Gordon Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc., et al., No. 26S-CT-17, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 4, 2026).

March 9, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

Providers are immune from liability under the state Healthcare Immunity Act and state Premises Immunity Act because Elmer’s treatment arose in response to the state disaster emergency for COVID-19. Likewise, Providers are also immune from liability under the federal PREP Act because Elmer’s death arose from use of a covered countermeasure, a ventilator, to treat COVID-19.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.D, No. 26S-MH-65, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 27, 2026).

March 2, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Appellate courts will affirm a civil commitment if, considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting it, without weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find the necessary elements proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Indiana Land Trust #3082 and Omar and Haitham Abuzir as Trustees v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission et al., No. 25S-PL-141, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2026).

March 2, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The Indiana Tort Claims Act establishes certain parameters to determine liability for negligent acts or omissions on the part of government employees and grants substantial immunity for conduct that falls within the scope of the employee’s employment.

Shabazz v. State, No. 25S-CR-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2026).

March 1, 2026 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

To show good cause under Interim Rule 14(C) for remote testimony in a criminal trial, the State must present case-specific evidence that allowing a particular witness to testify remotely is necessary to prevent a concrete and substantial harm that would otherwise likely occur and that could not be adequately addressed if the witness were to testify in person.

Ewing v. State, No. 26S-CR-43, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2026).

February 16, 2026 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, G. Slaughter, Supreme

A prosecutor cannot seek a sanction for violating the rules of work release or probation that is different than the sanction sought in the revocation petition(s) that is (are) the subject of a final revocation hearing.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 175
  • 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