• 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

Elrod v. Brooks, No. 10A01-0903-CV-155, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2009)

August 14, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Small claims court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence refuting defendant’s counterclaim after defendant presented his evidence.

In re Termination of Parental Relationship of J.G., No. 32A04-0902-JV-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2009)

August 14, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. Barnes

Notwithstanding the recent revision of the relevant statutes, the General Assembly did not intend for DCS to bear the burden of court-appointed legal services in termination proceedings, and the county should continue to be responsible for those costs.

Nealy v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0812-CV-1096, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2009)

August 14, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Insurance company was not entitled to setoff pursuant to the advance payment statute because there were multiple defendants and the insurance company was the plaintiffs’, rather than the defendants’, insurer.

Moore v. State, No. 29A02-0811-CR-1039, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2009)

July 29, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

As inmate’s objection to DOC sex offender treatment program’s polygraph requirements was grounded in his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear his motion challenging DOC discipline imposed for alleged invocation of his privilege.

Duran v. State, No. 45A03-0811-CR-569, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 23, 2009)

July 29, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden, M. Robb

Forcible entry of a third person’s apartment to apprehend arrest warrant subject did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Ind. Const. Art. I, Section 11.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 240
  • Go to page 241
  • Go to page 242
  • Go to page 243
  • Go to page 244
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 254
  • 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