• 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

Oberhansley v. State, No. 20S-LW-620, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 17, 2023).

May 22, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The jury’s LWOP recommendation implicitly reflected the necessary weighing determination; the trial court did not err in imposing the sentence. Considering his character and the nature of the crimes, the sentence was not inappropriate.

Davis v. State, No. 22S-CR-253, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 3, 2023).

May 8, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.

M.H. v. State, No. 22S-JV-251, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2023).

April 24, 2023 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.

Decker v. Star Financial Group, Inc., No. 22S-PL-305, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 21, 2023).

March 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

Bank could not add an arbitration addendum to terms and conditions of the bank account because the phrase, “any term of this agreement” only allowed modification existing terms, not adding a new term.

US Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 22S-CT-264, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2023).

March 13, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, L. Rush, Supreme

The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 156
  • 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.

  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe

Archive

Copyright © 2023 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs