• 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

Henriquez v. State, No. 20A04-1510-CR-1841, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2016).

August 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, N. Vaidik

Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant of the earliest and latest possible release dates, but trial courts are not equipped to make this specific determination. Defendant was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates.

Gardenour v. Bondelie, No. 32A01-1601-DR-82, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2016).

August 15, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Same-sex couple’s California registered domestic partnership established a relationship virtually identical to marriage, and under the principle of comity, their relationship is a spousal relationship. Child born by artificial insemination was a child of the spousal relationship; trial court did not err in awarding joint legal custody and parenting time and ordering partner to pay child support.

State v. Smith, No. 45A05-1507-CR-945, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 2, 2016).

August 8, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Trial court had authority to convert felony conviction to a misdemeanor; the terms of the plea agreement do not preclude the conversion because the parties could not have contemplated a misdemeanor conversion when it was entered.

Zanders v. State, No. 15A01-1509-CR-1519, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2016).

August 8, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Riley

Law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone incident to arrest and gathering location data on its GPS device.

Chastain v. State, No. 20A03-1510-CR-1839, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2016).

August 8, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

There is no requirement in the intimidation statute that a prior lawful act has to be completed for any considerable length of time before a threat is made; as a matter of public policy, people should be able to attempt to defuse situations without being threatened with the use of deadly force.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 262
  • Go to page 263
  • Go to page 264
  • Go to page 265
  • Go to page 266
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 587
  • 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