To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
The federal court for the Southern District of Indiana will accept comments through the end of November on proposed rule changes pertaining to filing under seal and non-electronic filing.
Noting a pending discovery may still turn up answers, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a summary judgment and allowed a feud between former business partners to continue.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard Reeves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1404-CR-151
Criminal. Affirms 45-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting.
Thomas Boswell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1405-CR-193
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.
M.D. v. R.M. (NFP)
29A05-1404-PO-185
Protective order. Affirms order granting R.M.’s request for an order of protection.
Gregory Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-PC-610
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
Sally Applegate-Rodeman and Leslie M. Rodeman v. JDK, LLC d/b/a Livrite Fitness (NFP)
49A02-1312-PL-1044
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Livrite Fitness as to the Rodemans’ claims for compensation for injuries Applegate-Rodeman suffered while exercising at the facility.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Dwain Neal v. Amanda Lee Austin
49A02-1404-DR-225
Domestic relation. Reverses grant of Austin’s petition for post-secondary education expenses on behalf of her and Neal’s adult child. The trial court did not have authority to issue an order for educational support. Holds that I.C. 31-16-6-6(c) and -6(d) necessitates that where the most recent order establishing a child support obligation was issued after June 30, 2012, the child must file a petition for educational needs before he or she becomes 19 years of age.
A man who says he is suffering negative repercussions after a mental health facility released his medical information to a family member will be able to move forward with his case in court.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an agent and an insurance company after the owner of a pub sued them believing they owed a duty to advise that the policy the pub chose would be insufficient to cover the replacement cost of the building.
The trial court did not err in denying an attorney’s motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim brought against him by Clark County’s Board of Commissioners and Aviation Board, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
Tackling an issue of first impression involving a request for payment of post-secondary education expenses, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a child support order under I.C. 31-16-6-6 refers to the parties’ most recent order concerning support.
The full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether an Arkansas man on death row should die for killing a Texas woman nearly 20 years ago. The judges decided Wednesday to grant Bruce Carneil Webster’s petition for rehearing en banc.
Because a man who was sent to the Department of Correction after his community corrections placement was revoked has been released from prison, his appeal is moot, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
Finding an auto dealer untimely appealed the denial of his motion to correct error regarding a judgment in favor of a buyer, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
A northern Indiana surgeon accused of plotting to kill his ex-wife and make it look like suicide could get a change of venue for his upcoming trial.
Attorneys for an Indianapolis woman convicted of killing six children and a 40-year-old man in a head-on traffic collision asked a judge for a new trial Thursday, arguing in part she had inadequate legal counsel.
Indiana's Supreme Court justices grilled attorneys for the state and IBM Corp. on Thursday about the company's failed attempt to privatize Indiana's welfare services, which prompted the state to cancel IBM's $1.3 billion state contract less than three years into the 10-year deal.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael W. Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1402-PC-55
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
Christopher Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1403-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and one count of Class D felony possession of marijuana.
E.I. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1403-JV-137
Juvenile. Affirms determination E.I. is a delinquent for committing what would be Class B felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.
Letitia Kurabara v. Creative Real Estate Property Management (NFP)
48A02-1402-SC-83
Small claim. Affirms there is an agency relationship between Kurabara and a family friend she rented her house to. Affirms damages award in the amount of $4,724.29, but it is not clear the court accounted for the $1,365 in payments retained by Creative Real Estate Property Management, which managed the property. Remands for further proceedings.
Indiana Supreme Court
Wayne A. Campbell v. State of Indiana
13S05-1410-PC-682
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief, finding no ineffective assistance by trial counsel for, in part, failing to object to an instruction on the definition of “intentionally.” The second sentence of the contested instruction serves to emphasize the heavy burden placed on the state to prove that a defendant acted intentionally.
A part-time magistrate position has become available in the New Albany location of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, thanks to authorization from the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Citing lack of evidence, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed an Indianapolis teen’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. None of his actions suggested any criminal activity was afoot.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for a man who charged his attorney was ineffective for not doing a better job arguing the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the defendant conspired to commit dealing cocaine.
Clearing up confusion among the courts as to whether a jury instruction regarding the definition of “intentionally” can include that the defendant intended to “cause the result” of his conduct, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Pattern Jury Instruction 9.05 represents a correct statement of the law.