• 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

O’Bryant v. Adams, No. 18S-PL-584, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 4, 2019).

June 10, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

A valid forum-selection clause, in which the parties agree by contract to litigate their disputes in a specific forum, does not deprive a trial court of personal jurisdiction over parties that would otherwise be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Town of Brownsburg, Ind. v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, No. 19S-PL-342, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 5, 2019).

June 10, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

A trial court hearing a remonstrance proceeding on judicial review must consider the evidence submitted by both the municipality and the remonstrators, and need not defer to either the municipality’s own evidence supporting the annexation or its determination that it met the statutory requirements.

Bedolla v. State, No. 19S-PC-328, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 28, 2019).

June 3, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The post-conviction court abused its discretion in closing evidence without allowing counsel to make an offer of proof and to secure a deposition of a witness who could help prove the defendant had been wrongly convicted of murder.

Barber v. State, No. 19S-CR-329, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 29, 2019).

June 3, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A person convicted of child molesting is a statutorily defined as a violent criminal and may not file for sentence modification under Ind. Code 35-38-1-17 after the elapse of 365 days from sentencing without the approval of the prosecuting attorney

Kelly v. State, No. 18S-CR-585, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 22, 2019).

May 28, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Trial court properly allowed the State to present evidence of defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence during trial because defendant opened the door to rebuttal of his defense that he had no knowledge of the drug deal and was an unwitting participant.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • Go to page 48
  • Go to page 49
  • Go to page 50
  • Go to page 51
  • 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