• 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

Sanford v. State, No. 49S05-1604-PC-210, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendant has permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2 because the defendant’s failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal was not his fault, and the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under the Rule.

Cowans v. State, No. __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016). __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 27, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

When being pulled over by the police, a driver does not have full discretion to choose to stop anywhere, but with “adequate justification” might have some discretion to choose the location of a stop. Whether the driver exercises limited discretion in choosing a place to stop should be a question of fact for the jury.

Suggs v. State, No. 02S03-1508-CR-510, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

The sister of a brother who was once married to the defendant’s aunt is not a “family or household member” within the meaning of the statute elevating misdemeanor battery to a level 6 felony.

Allen v. State, No. 49S05-1601-CR-46, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“[W]hether declining to attribute delay to the defendant for failing to arrange for his transportation from Department of Correction custody and to appear for his trial scheduled for January 23, 2013, or whether attributing such failures to the defendant under Rule (C) and permitting the trial court and the State a reasonable time thereafter to bring the defendant to trial, the defendant was entitled to discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), and his motion should have been granted.”

Taylor-Bey v. State, No. 49A05-1503-CR-123, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court had jurisdiction over a “Moorish American National Sovereign.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 284
  • Go to page 285
  • Go to page 286
  • Go to page 287
  • Go to page 288
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 596
  • 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