• 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

Thomson v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, No. 71A04-1405-CT-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2015).

February 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

No expert was required for the medical malpractice case; common sense and experience is enough to conclude that an arm board should not become detached leaving a patient’s arm dangling for such a period of time that the patient suffers nerve injury.

Miller v. Danz, No. 49A05-1401-PL-45, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2015).

February 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

“T.R. 17(F) permits the insertion of the name of a real party in interest ‘at any time.’ In cases where the statute of limitation has expired and the opposing party raises the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, T.R. 15(C) provides the framework for determining whether the complaint against the now-named party, as amended pursuant to T.R. 17(F), relates back.”

In re S.A., __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2015).

February 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“If multiple hearings are unavoidable, then the trial court should, if at all possible, refrain from adjudicating the child a CHINS until evidence has been heard from both parents. And if an adjudication is unavoidable before evidence has been heard from the second parent, then the trial court must give meaningful consideration to the evidence provided by the second parent in determining whether the child remains a CHINS.”

Garcia v. State, No. 49A05-1402-CR-61, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 3, 2015).

February 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Fourth Amendment rule on search incident to arrest permitted officer to open container found on defendant’s person, but opening the container was an unreasonable search under Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 11.

Study v. State, No. 06S04-1407-CR-461, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 4, 2015).

February 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

“[T]he concealment-tolling provision under Indiana Code § 35-41-4-2(h)(2) requires a positive act by the defendant that is calculated to conceal the fact that a crime has been committed.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 344
  • Go to page 345
  • Go to page 346
  • Go to page 347
  • Go to page 348
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 587
  • 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