• 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

In re E.K., No. 24S-JC-300, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 19, 2025).

June 23, 2025 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Courts can amend a CHINS petition on a party’s request to include CHINS allegations not pled by DCS when doing so serves the child’s best interests and does not prejudice the child’s rights. The best practice is for the court and counsel on all sides to determine at the earliest opportunity whether any party might request adjudication under an alternative CHINS category.

State ex rel. Mayhill v. Marion Superior Court 5, No. 25S-OR-90, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 13, 2025).

June 16, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

After the Chief Administrative Officer denied withdrawing a case under TR 53.1, the parties could file an original action asking for a writ to withdraw the case from the trial court judge.

EdgeRock Dev., LLC v. CH Garmong & Son, Inc., No. 24S-PL-184, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2025).

June 9, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

A construction lien secures only the debt for improvements directly benefiting the lien-attached property. Contractors can foreclose the liens on each property to recover only those amounts, not amounts for work to improve a different owner’s property.

Thomas v. Valpo Motors, Inc., No. 24S-PL-286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 13, 2025).

May 19, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

For purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in claims alleging breach of implied warranty, a buyer need only show to the satisfaction of the factfinder that the seller had “a reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. The buyer can meet this burden of proof by showing that he explicitly asked the seller to cure (i.e., repair, replace, or refund) or that he notified the seller of the purported defect and the seller proposed no remedy in response.

Kelly v. State, No. 25S-PC-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2025).

May 5, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

While the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies require appellate screening before filing a successive petition for post-conviction relief, those rules do not require appellate screening before amending a successive petition.

  • « 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 171
  • 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