• 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

McGrath v. State, No. 49S04-1710-CR-653, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 1, 2018).

May 7, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Investigation into and observations of the home were “sufficiently indicative of a marijuana grow” when viewed together and in light of the officer’s training. The issuance of a second warrant was proper under the collective knowledge doctrine, which presumes the officer’s credibility so no special showing of reliability was required.

Kirby v. State, No. 18S‐CR‐79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2018).

April 30, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Defendant may not challenge a collateral consequence of an ex post facto statute barring him from school property through a post-conviction proceeding, but he may pursue his claim in a declaratory‐judgment action.

Weida v. State, No. 79S02-1711-CR-00687, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 12, 2018).

April 16, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The prior version of Sex Offender Special Condition 26, providing a ban on using the internet, is unreasonable since it does not reasonably relate to probationer’s rehabilitation and protecting the public.

Roumbos v. Vazanellis, No. 45S03-1710-CT-635,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 12, 2018).

April 16, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

In a legal malpractice case, defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff would not have succeeded in her underlying premises-liability claim; it is a material-factual dispute that the designated evidence establishes that various wires on a hospital-room floor and the risks they pose would be apparent to a reasonable person.

Care Group Heart Hospital, LLC v. Sawyer, No. 49S05-1710-PL-671,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 23, 2018).

March 26, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

The Court enforced the plain meaning of the contract; “terminated for any reason” means any termination, for any reason.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 65
  • Page 66
  • Page 67
  • Page 68
  • Page 69
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 178
  • 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