• 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

Turner v. State, No. 24S-CR-147, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Defendant is not deprived of the benefit of hindsight when it reveals their conduct was necessary in self-defense, even though that necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment

Konkle v. State, No. 24S-CR-207, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

The eggshell doctrine can be used in criminal cases, including murder. The eggshell skull doctrine is one of causation, and causation is a required element in proving a criminal conviction, it only makes sense that the doctrine be applied for such purposes.

JQR v. State, No. 24S-JV-298, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Trial court abused its discretion by admitting a juvenile’s statements into evidence without a valid waiver of right. An adverse interest may arise if the evidence shows an adult waives the juvenile’s rights but stands to personally benefit from the waiver to the child’s detriment.

Tingley v. First Financial Bank, No. 24S-PL-299, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2025).

March 3, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Venue statutes do not remove or alter a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which is separate and distinct from a trial court’s consideration of prudential matters.

Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC v. Nagireddy, No. 24S-PL-287, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 19, 2025).

February 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Trial court’s injunction was improper because the plaintiff did not prove they are likely to win their public-nuisance claim alleging defendant’s proposed land use violates the city’s unified development ordinance.

  • « 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 169
  • 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