• 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

SCI Propane, LLC v. Frederick, No. 55S04-1508-PL-501,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Attorneys’ fees are not recoverable under the General Wrongful Death Statute as a form of damages when the decedent is survived by a spouse and/or dependents.

JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Claybridge Homeowners Assoc., Inc., No. 29S02-1504-MF-188, ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Motion to Intervene was properly denied because the party had constructive notice of foreclosure by way of a valid lis pendens notice.

Gross v. State, No. 41A01-1411-CR-467, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias

Due process required dismissal of charges against incompetent defendant, when he had been certified unlikely to be restored to competence and had been committed for longer than his maximum possible sentence less credit time.

Steele v. State, No. 49A02-1408-CR-585, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Domestic-battery victim’s hearsay statement to forensic nurse examiner was admissible as statement for medical diagnosis or treatment. Sentencing order properly “merged” multiple counts, without entering conviction on them, to avoid double-jeopardy violation.

Guffey v. State, No. 21A01-1410-CR-446, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Defendant’s convictions on five counts violated actual-evidence test for double jeopardy—though the court “merged” Counts II and IV into other counts, jeopardy still attached because it had previously entered judgment on them; and Counts III and V should also have been vacated and merged into Count I. But trial court could properly impose a longer sentence for the remaining Count I on remand, as long as it did not exceed the aggregate consecutive sentences previously imposed.
Additionally, sentencing order was defective for entering a habitual-offender sentence separately instead of applying as an enhancement to an underlying sentence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 312
  • Go to page 313
  • Go to page 314
  • Go to page 315
  • Go to page 316
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 588
  • 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