• 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

Springfield v. State, No. 19S-CR-348, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 10, 2019).

June 17, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Two or more distinct offenses may be enhanced due to the use of the same weapon during the commission of each offense, but double jeopardy protections prevent enhancement due to the continuous possession of the weapon.

State v. Ruiz, No. 19S-CR-336, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2019).

June 10, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Miranda warnings must be provided when police interrogate someone when their movement is curtailed and they are subjected to coercive pressures.

In re Unsupervised Estate of Orlando C. Lewis, Jr., No. 18S-EU-507, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2019).

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

Trial court properly exercised its discretion to reconsider its initial appointment of the special administrator of an estate. Though not required by statute or trial rule, courts should nevertheless give notice and hold a hearing before appointing a special administrator or rescinding such an appointment.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 53
  • Go to page 54
  • Go to page 55
  • Go to page 56
  • Go to page 57
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 176
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs