• 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

Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC v. Fricke, No. 23S‐CT‐304, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 21, 2024).

May 27, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

A plaintiff‐debtor’s omission of a lawsuit from their bankruptcy asset schedule does not deprive them of standing to pursue that lawsuit. Judicial estoppel does not bar the claim if the bankruptcy court permits the plaintiff‐debtor to cure their omission by amending their asset schedule.

Cosme v. Clark, No. 24S-CT-159, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 6, 2024).

May 13, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

At the directed-verdict stage, a judge can review whether inferences from the evidence are reasonable, but it cannot weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility.

Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, No. 23S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 9, 2024).

May 13, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Trial courts have no authority to redact or otherwise exclude the evidence a party submits to a medical review panel.

Smith v. State, No. 23S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2024).

May 3, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.

Lane v. State, No. 24S-CR-150, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2024).

May 3, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. However, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Reviewing courts will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 169
  • 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