• 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

Ind. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Holcomb, No. 49S05-1404-CC-209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 26, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act’s cap on attorney fees from a Patient Compensation Fund award does not reduce the Fund’s liability.

Mallory v. State, No. 20A03-1403-MI-76, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014)

August 21, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Former statutory provision that victim’s statement “shall” be considered did not authorize court to refuse expungement when all petition requirements were met.

Ward v. State, No. 49A02-1401-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014).

August 21, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Statements by belt whipping victim to medical personnel identifying defendant as attacker were not “testimonial,” so that Sixth Amendment Confrontation right did not apply to prevent personnel from testifying about victim’s statements.

Littrell v. State, No. 79A02-1401-CR-24, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2014).

August 21, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

When defendant had moved for a trial within seventy days pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B), the ninety day extension authorized by Criminal Rule 4(D) for unavailable state’s evidence ran from the end of the seventy day period, not from the earlier date when the trial court granted the extension.

Gonzalez v. Evans, No. 29A02-1311-DR-984. , __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2014).

August 21, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Trial Rule 34(C)(3) permits non-parties to recover attorney fees associated with complying with a subpoena or other discovery request, but that refusing to comply with a discovery request solely on the basis that the parties cannot agree on an appropriate amount to pay does not constitute reasonable resistance to a discovery request.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 362
  • Go to page 363
  • Go to page 364
  • Go to page 365
  • Go to page 366
  • 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