• 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

Rogers v. Martin, No. 02A05-1506-CT-520, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec.14, 2015).

December 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

A social host has the duty to render aid to a guest.

Knighten v. E. Chicago Housing Authority, No. 45S04-1512-CT-686, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 8, 2015).

December 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Genuine issues of material fact on whether employer should be liable under the theory of respondeat superior precluded summary judgment.

Kunberger v. State, No. 02A03-1505-CR-304, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Convictions by open guilty plea for criminal confinement, strangulation, and domestic battery did not violate double jeopardy under the actual evidence test. Defendant could not show that all three offenses were based on a single act of strangulation, because his factual basis admitted only the bare elements of each offense, and facts in the probable cause affidavit showed a time span and course of conduct that could have provided separate and distinct facts for each offense.

Pattison v. State, No. 27A05-1411-CR-517, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Jury instruction in OWI was fundamental error, when it impermissibly shifted burden from State to Defendant on the only contested element.

Pribie v. State, No. 12A02-1412-CR-836, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

“Source of physical evidence” exception to Evidence Rule 412 (rape shield) does not apply when State presents no physical evidence for Defendant to rebut. Excluding evidence did not prevent defendant from describing his version of events and cross-examining witnesses accordingly. Bailiff’s communication with jury was clearly improper, but harmless. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury heard no extraneous information, based on weighing conflicting accounts of events in deliberations.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 311
  • Page 312
  • Page 313
  • Page 314
  • Page 315
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 603
  • 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