• 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 Mandate of Funds for Center Township of Marion Co. Small Claims Court, No. 49S00-1207-MF-420, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 28, 2013).

July 3, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

The Supreme Court approved the renovations, additional staff, and the mandate prohibiting the relocation of the court for the Center Township Marion Co. Small Claims Court, and disapproved the mandated salary increases.

Ramsey v. Lightning Corp., No. 49A02-1209-CC-705, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 2, 2013).

July 3, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

“Trial Rule 23 supports the conclusion that the trial court may amend, alter, modify and even revoke or rescind a previous order certifying a class.”

Tillman v. Tillman, No. 87A05-1212-DR-619, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 3, 2013).

July 3, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Guardians of incapacitated persons do not have authority to petition for dissolution of marriage on the incapacitated person’s behalf.

Fry v. State, No. 09S00-1205-CR-361, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jun. 25, 2013).

June 28, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, M. Massa, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

“We hold today that when a defendant charged with murder or treason seeks bail, the burden is on the State, if it seeks to deny bail, to show—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”

Sanders v. State, No. 49S02-1304-CR-242, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jun. 25, 2013).

June 28, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Even though the window tint of defendant’s vehicle was not quite dark enough to establish a Window Tint Statute violation, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle for a Window Tint violation when he could not “clearly recognize or identify the occupant inside” “coupled with the fact that the actual tint closely border[ed] the statutory limit.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 405
  • Go to page 406
  • Go to page 407
  • Go to page 408
  • Go to page 409
  • 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