• 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

Jones v. State, No. 84S05-1712-CR-741, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind.,Dec. 19, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Abandonment is an allowable defense for both attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, but it must be voluntary and occur after the “prohibited conduct” and before the “underlying crime” has been committed or becomes inevitable.

Johnson v. State, No. 32S05-1707-CR-469, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 21, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

The state must prove that each of the three prior unrelated felony convictions meet the ten-year requirement in order to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender under Ind. Code 35-50-2-8(d).

Calvin v. State, No. 02S03-1709-CR-611 , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 21, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

Despite an argument that it leads to an absurd result, a level 4 burglary conviction could not be enhanced with a habitual-offender finding because defendant’s two prior out-of-state convictions must be treated as Level 6 felonies under Ind. Code 35-50-2-8(b).

Fields v. State, No. 43A03-1704-CR-856, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss charges against him because the arresting officer was acting as a de facto officer and his failure to take the statutory oath was a technical defect.

Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., No. 53S04-1703-CT-121, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 20, 2017).

December 29, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Because the complaint does not establish that the statute of limitations had already run when the complaint was filed, Defendant’s T.R. 12(B)(6) motion shouldn’t have been granted.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 225
  • Page 226
  • Page 227
  • Page 228
  • Page 229
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 602
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs