• 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

Eckelbarger v. State, No. 90S02-1603-CR-157, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 29, 2016).

April 4, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Consecutive 16-year sentences for both delivering and manufacturing methamphetamine were inappropriate where evidence of manufacturing was seized pursuant to search warrant for State-sponsored delivery offenses.

State v. Taylor, No. 46S04-1509-CR-552, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 30, 2016).

April 4, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Police eavesdropping on attorney-client conference was reprehensible and presumptively prejudicial, but under the circumstances did not necessarily warrant suppression of all testimony from officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege about the eavesdropping. Presumption of prejudice was rebuttable if State could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each witness’s anticipated testimony was untainted by the misconduct and do so without implicating witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.

Fisher v. State, No. 20A03-1509-CR-1373, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2016).

April 4, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Restitution order was proper, despite plea agreement’s silence about restitution; agreement implicitly incorporated I.C. § 35-48-4-17, which mandates restitution in methamphetamine cleanup cases.

Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., Inc., No. 54A01-1506-CT-602, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 31, 2016).

April 4, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. May

Plaintiff’s status as an undocumented immigrant is relevant to a claim of lost earning capacity.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, No. 14-10078, ___ U.S. ___ (March 21, 2016).

March 29, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, S. Alito, SCOTUS

Second Amendment protects possession of stun guns; right is not limited to arms in existence at the founding or weapons useful in warfare.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 289
  • Go to page 290
  • Go to page 291
  • Go to page 292
  • Go to page 293
  • 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