• 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

Gaff v. Indiana-Purdue University of Fort Wayne, No. 02S03-1604-PL-201, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 22, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“[W]hile the plaintiff’s cause of action arises under federal law, summary judgment proceedings arising under Indiana Trial Rule 56 are governed by Indiana summary judgment procedure and jurisprudence.”

Gibson v. State, No. 22S00-1206-DP-360, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., April 12, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Allowing State to amend death-penalty charging information shortly before trial—changing the aggravator from having “committed” another murder to having “been convicted of” another murder—was not error.

Hitch v. State, No. 45S03-1604-CR-167, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., April 5, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, R. Rucker, Supreme

A determination that the defendant was ineligible to possess a firearm under Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.7(a) did not amount to additional punishment.

Meunier-Short v. State, No. 32A01-1507-CR-96, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 14, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Trial court was not required to conduct indigency hearing before assessing fines, costs, and fees as condition of probation, but it must do so at some point before completion of probation or before revoking probation for failure to pay.
Trial court lacked authority to impose substance-abuse or drug-countermeasures fees.
Trial court abused its discretion in ordering defendant to return to school and maintain “C” average while being employed full-time; statute permits either maintaining full-time employment or “faithfully pursu[ing]” a course of study to equip him for employment.

Ogburn v. State, No. 8A01-1509-CR-1546, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 18, 2016).

April 18, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Smell of burnt marijuana, observed during exigent-circumstance entry into apartment, did not provide probable cause for search warrant when officer did not explain why he concluded smell was not from neighboring apartment; and seizure of key fob for vehicle where large bundles of marijuana were found exceeded scope of warrant’s authorization for “indicia of occupancy, residency or ownership.” State failed to prove K-9 sniff of vehicle would have been conducted independent of the tainted evidence. Because bundles of marijuana were poisoned fruit and should have been suppressed, conviction was reversed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 278
  • Go to page 279
  • Go to page 280
  • Go to page 281
  • Go to page 282
  • 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