• 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

Ennik v. State, No. 90A02-1409-CR-664, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. July 17, 2015).

July 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Defendant was not entitled to severance of right when alleged molestations were based on a common modus operandi and not just of similar character.

Osmanov v. State, No. 35A04-1412-PC-568, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2015).

July 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Trial court improperly denied PCR summarily by taking judicial notice of prior guilty-plea proceedings; they had not been submitted as evidence in support of summary disposition under P-C.R. 1(4)(g) and were not part of the “pleadings” that could be considered under P-C.R. 1(4)(f).

First Bank of Whiting v. 524, LLC, No. 45A04-1410-MI-476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2015).

July 23, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

To issue a tax deed pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(b) “there is implicit in the statute a sixth condition, which is that the petitioner is legally entitled to a tax deed after completing all of the requisite steps.”

State v. Terrell, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 55A01-1501-CR-9 (Ind. Ct. App. July 10, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Contraband found in probationer’s home was admissible; probationer waived search and seizure rights and agreed to “reasonable” searches as condition of probation, and search was not unreasonable (applying Vanderkolk v. State, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. June 9, 2015)).

Seal v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 48A02-1410-CR-775 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

State’s inadvertent failure to preserve audio recordings of victims’ initial field interviews and subsequent follow-up interviews did not violate defendant’s rights; no law requires recording of victim interviews, and police did not intentionally sabotage or destroy the recordings they had attempted to make.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 332
  • Page 333
  • Page 334
  • Page 335
  • Page 336
  • 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