• 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

Isom v. Neal, No. 21S-CQ-545, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2022).

January 31, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A petition for post-conviction relief tendered to a trial court without the verification required by Post-Conviction Rule 1 is not properly filed.

State v. Katz, No. 20S-CR-632, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 18, 2022).

January 24, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8, which criminalizes the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image, does not violate the free interchange clause of the Indiana Constitution, or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

WTHR-TV v. Hamilton Se. Sch. Dist., No. 21S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 13, 2022).

January 18, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(8) requires public agencies to provide certain types of information, but it does not require them to provide the underlying documents.

K.G. v. Smith, No. 21S-CT-561, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a caretaker assumes responsibility for a child, and when that caretaker owes a duty of care to the child’s parent or guardian, a claim against the caretaker for the negligent infliction of emotional distress may proceed when the parent or guardian later discovers, with irrefutable certainty, that the caretaker sexually abused that child and when that abuse severely impacted the parent or guardian’s emotional health.

Clark County REMC v. Reis, No. 21S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Board policy, which established reimbursement benefits for former directors, was not an offer because it did not convey with reasonable certainty promises manifesting an intention or invitation to contract with another; no contract existed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 170
  • 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