• 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

Civil

Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Com'n, No. 39A01-0908-CV-408, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

(1) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for “travel, postage, and copying” costs under Trial Rule 41(E) (failure to prosecute); (2) because defendants were forced to defend against a frivolous and groundless claim, however, trial court did abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b).

Bond v. State, No. 71A03-0910-CR-457, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2010)

April 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Defendant failed to show that selection of his jury from Judicial Center list violated Sixth Amendment’s “fair cross section” requirement.

Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, No. 15S04-0907-CV-310, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 20, 2010)

April 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Inverse condemnation is the sole remedy for a governmental act that purports to exercise all rights of ownership over a parcel of land; the six year statute of limitations for trespass applies to such a claim.

Tisdial v. Young, No. 29A05-0909-CV-544, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2010)

April 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Indiana Code chapter 34-26-5 requires evidence of domestic violence, stalking, or a sex offense.

Blakemore v. State, No. 49A02-0907-CR-614, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2010)

April 20, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Plea agreement to comply with “the statutory requirements of registering . . . as a sex offender,” when there were no such requirements at the time of conviction, could not justify ex post facto application during probation of subsequently-enacted registration obligation.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 231
  • Go to page 232
  • Go to page 233
  • Go to page 234
  • Go to page 235
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • 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