• 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

State v. Bazan, No. 55A01-1506-CR-737, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

New York conviction for “operating a motor vehicle while ability impaired” required a lesser showing of impairment than Indiana’s OWI offense, and therefore was not “substantially similar” to support enhancing Indiana OWI charges based on a prior conviction within five years.

Hernandez v. State, No. 49S02-1511-CR-644, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Nov. 10, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

At trial for carrying a handgun without a license, defendant presented some evidence to support defense of necessity; trial court therefore erred in refusing to give the instruction.

Darringer v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-86, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Traffic stop was based on unreasonable mistake of law, thus requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of OWI conviction; deputy’s belief in mid-2014 that temporary license plate could not be displayed in back window was unreasonable in view of 2013 amendment of I.C. § 9-32-6-11 expressly permitting such displays.

Trammell v. State, No. 24A01-1502-CR-51, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Defendant’s probation was improperly revoked, because State failed to prove that the alleged violation occurred during the probationary period; Court of Appeals would not consider matters outside the record included in the State’s Appendix purporting to show the dates defendant was on probation.

Gertiser v. Stokes, No. 29S02-1511-DR-643, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 10, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Revoking spousal maintenance requires proof “not merely that the maintenance award had become unreasonably excessive, but its very existence had become unreasonable.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 307
  • Go to page 308
  • Go to page 309
  • Go to page 310
  • Go to page 311
  • 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