• 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

Love v. State, No. 20A05-1509-CR-1327, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 20, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Trial court should have dismissed, rather than denied, defendant’s habeas petition that was in substance an unauthorized successive PCR.

Roar v. State, No. 49A02-1506-CR-506 , ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 21, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, M. May

Conditional threat to victim (that “if I came back on the property[] he’d kill me”) supported conviction for intimidation (disagreeing with C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. not sought and Causey v. State, 45 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. not sought).

Horton v. State, No. 79S02-1510-CR-628, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., April 21, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Defendant’s personal waiver of second-phase jury trial was required; counsel could not waive it on defendant’s behalf, even though defendant had just been through first phase of bifurcated trial.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of prior case file as evidence of defendant’s prior conviction, because file was readily and publicly available and cause number was repeatedly an unambiguously identified on the record; however, better practice would have been to formally enter the relevant documents into the record.

Tinker v. State, No. 10A01-1507-CR-999, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 22, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: E. Najam

Speedy-trial objection was not untimely; defendant had an obligation to object only if, during the 365-day period under Crim. R. 4(C), the court scheduled a new trial outside that period.

Citizens Action Coalition of Ind. v. Koch, No. 49S00-1510-PL-00607, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Whether the work product exception within the Indiana Access to Public Records Act applies to the Indiana General Assembly is a non-justiciable question.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 277
  • Go to page 278
  • Go to page 279
  • Go to page 280
  • Go to page 281
  • 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