• 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

Myers v. State, No. 76S03-1407-CR-493, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Experts unanimously agreed defendant was legally insane, but other evidence in the record supported the jury’s conclusion that he was not; as it was not shown defendant was given Miranda rights, the State could use his post-arrest silence and request for an attorney as evidence of sanity without violating his due process rights.

Schaadt v. State, No. 33A05-1409-CR-428, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Savings clause for 2014 penal reforms does not violate the Indiana Constitution’s Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Grant v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., No. 49A05-1404-MF-139, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Plaintiff improperly attempted to circumvent the trial court’s T.R. 41 ruling by filing a new complaint raising identical legal and factual issues.

Cohen & Malad, LLP v. Daly, No. 29S02-1504-PL-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 8, 2015).

April 9, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

“Absent agreement otherwise, ‘a lawyer retained under a contingent fee contract but discharged prior to the contingency is entitled to recover the value of services rendered if there is a subsequent settlement or award[,]’ and in that case, ‘the fee is to be measured by the proportion of the total fee equal to the contribution of the discharged lawyer’s efforts to the ultimate result[.]’”

Grady v. North Carolina, No. 14-593, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 30, 2015).

April 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, SCOTUS

Attachment of a GPS monitor to a recidivist sex offender without his consent is a Fourth Amendment search; as the question of the reasonableness of the GPS monitor “search” in this case was not raised, the Court does not address it.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 353
  • Page 354
  • Page 355
  • Page 356
  • Page 357
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 605
  • 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