To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
The order stems from an ongoing disagreement between the city and Patoka Valley AIDS Community Action Group Inc., a volunteer group that claimed the city’s previous special events ordinance was unconstitutional.
The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to play out.
The ceremony, administered by Judge James R. Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, also served as an early celebration of the U.S.’s 250th birthday.
Mullin’s background and views have faced fresh scrutiny since last week, when Trump said he was nominating him to succeed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem at the end of the month.
The administration opened a trade investigation to examine whether excess industrial capacity and government backing could give foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage over U.S. companies.
Miami Correctional Facility started holding ICE detainees in October, under a two-year agreement with the federal government.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Brandon Lamont French v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1906
Criminal. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Jennifer Prinz Harrison. Reverses French’s five convictions of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and vacates the convictions. Holds the State presented insufficient evidence that French violated the no-contact order because the order prohibited contact with the victim only “while released from custody pending trial,” and all alleged contacts occurred while French was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. Concludes that although French communicated with the victim through electronic messages, phone calls and intermediaries while jailed, those actions did not violate the express terms of the order. Judge May authored the opinion. Judges Felix and Weissmann concur. Appellant’s attorney: Peter Laramore. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
The Pentagon’s action “forces government contractors to comply with vague and ill-defined directions that have never before been publicly wielded against a U.S. company,” Microsoft’s legal brief says.
The Justice Department announcement was immediately met with strong criticism from multiple states.
A North Manchester-based company is suing the Wabash County Board of Commissioners, arguing that an ordinance passed last summer regarding is preempted by the state’s carbon capture and sequestration statute.
Indianapolis police on Tuesday announced plans to step up curfew enforcement for people under 18 as spring break approaches.
The case could determine whether thousands of Hoosier college students can use campus IDs at the polls.
A ban on cryptocurrency ATMs earned the governor’s signature.
The point-shaving scheme grew to involve more than 39 players on more than 17 different NCAA Division I men’s basketball teams, who then rigged and attempted to rig more than 29 games, prosecutors said.
Attorney General Todd Rokita is asking a court to consider the new immigration enforcement law in his case against Indianapolis Public Schools, in which he alleges the school district interfered with a January 2025 deportation order.
DynamoEdge’s core product uses 5G technology to analyze real-time data to anticipate problems before they occur.
Emergency cases are different from those on the court’s regular docket in part because the justices often don’t explain their rationale for rulings, which usually come before lower courts have fully considered the merits of an issue and made final rulings.
OpenAI has said it considered but didn’t alert police about the activities of the person who months later committed one of Canada’s worst school shootings on Feb. 10.
The possession case was one of several recent cases he’s listed as a defendant in.
Minnesota case files show officers repeatedly detained people under a reinterpretation of a 1996 law that states that anyone in the U.S. illegally “shall be detained” without bond, indefinitely, even when courts had ordered they be granted a bond hearing or set free.
