• 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

Cassity v. State, No. 23A-CR-209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2023).

October 30, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

A law enforcement officer initiating a traffic stop must be wearing a distinctive uniform and a badge of authority. A distinctive uniform is the specific design, color, and patches officially adopted by the governmental authority employing the police officer so as to inform the public that the person stopping them is, in fact, a police officer employed by that respective department.

City of Carmel v. Barham Investments, LLC, No. 22A-PL-2399, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2023).

October 30, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

The taking of real property by eminent domain extinguishes any easements burdening the property.

Finnegan v. State, No. 23A-MI-442, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2023).

October 23, 2023 Filed Under: Civil, Criminal

A criminal contempt proceeding is a trial of a criminal case. Criminal contempt defendants are entitled to the same statutory protections afforded other criminal defendants, including the right to file a notice of insanity defense and obtain the appointment of appropriate experts to testify at the contempt proceedings.

Williams v. State, No. 23S-CR-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 19, 2023).

October 23, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Absent a knowing and voluntary waiver, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-4(a) requires that a defendant must be personally present at the time sentence is pronounced.

Brook v. State, No. 22A-CR-2110, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2023).

October 23, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, N. Vaidik, P. Foley

When a defendant is charged with a crime elevated based upon a prior infraction, the trial court is not required to bifurcate the proceedings. Because Lorazepam’s status as a legend drug was not an issue of fact—it was identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code—the trial court did not erroneously invade the province of the jury by giving instructions that created a mandatory presumption indicating that the substance was classified as a legend drug.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 34
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to page 36
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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