• 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

T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).

September 4, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”

State v. Schulze, No. 73A01-1311-CR-471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Officer who offers a chemical test to a suspected intoxicated driver is not required to be certified to administer the test.

Withers v. State, No. 48A02-1403-CR-130, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2016).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

In hearing to terminate drug court placement, trial court properly took judicial notice of notes of attendance reports in Drug Court file under Evidence Rule 201(b)(5), authorizing judicial notice of “records of a court of this state.”

Carpenter v. State, No. 02A05-1309-CR-467, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Massa

As an issue of first impression, this case holds that the hearsay rule does not prohibit admission of mail exhibits to demonstrate the defendant’s name and address were on mail found in a specific location.

Ind. Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 49S10-1402-TA-79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 25, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Company could not deduct foreign-source dividend income when calculating its net operating losses for Indiana tax purposes.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 361
  • Go to page 362
  • Go to page 363
  • Go to page 364
  • Go to page 365
  • 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