• 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

In re M.N., No. 53A01-1410-JT-462, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 10, 2015).

March 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Adoption agency’s ability to file a petition to voluntarily terminate parental rights to not restricted to the scope of its statutory authorization as a licensed child placing agency.

State v. Arnold, No. 22A05-1408-CR-387, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2015).

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

Motion to set aside habitual offender enhancement should have been treated as a postconviction relief petition; trial court erred by vacating only the habitual enhancement, when the habitual enhancement was an integral part of the plea agreement’s disposition of charged offenses.

Shelton v. State, No. 71A03-1408-Cr-309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2015).

March 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Search of an offender on community corrections monitored home detention is subject to the reasonable suspicion standard required for probationer searches; in this case, the circumstances conferred the required reasonable suspicion for a warrantless dog sniff search of the offender’s home and garage.

State v. Cunningham, No. 19S05-1409-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2015).

March 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, R. Rucker, Supreme

Police validly required motorist to submit to a pat-down as a condition for allowing him to get out of his truck during a traffic stop, and the officer’s simple query about a pill bottle detected in the motorist’s pocket did not improperly extend the scope of the stop.

Bisard v. State, No. 02A03-1312-CR-492, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2015).

March 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Trial court’s indication it would consider defendant’s use of certain evidence as opening the door to evidence of defendant’s subsequent criminal conduct was not a ruling admitting the subsequent conduct into evidence, so that defendant’s failure to present his evidence and obtain an actual ruling on an objection to the subsequent conduct evidence did not preserve the issue for appeal.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 349
  • Go to page 350
  • Go to page 351
  • Go to page 352
  • Go to page 353
  • 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