• 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

Crider v. State, No. 91S05-1206-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

March 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal could not prevent his challenging on appeal the trial court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive habitual offender enhancements not agreed to in the bargain.

Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

March 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, R. Rucker, Supreme

“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”

Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, No. 45A03-1207-PL-316,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 21, 2013).

March 21, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.

Bethea v. State, No. 18S05-1206-PC-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 12, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Overrules cases holding that an element of a charge dismissed by plea agreement cannot be used as an aggravating sentencing factor, and holds that instead elements or conduct involved in dismissed charges may be used in sentencing unless the parties provide otherwise in their plea agreement.

K.O.A. Properties, LLC v. Matheison, No. 48A04-1207-SC-365,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Small claims court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though it was not listed as a separate party defendant on the notice of claim and defendant was not separately served with the notice, because it was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform defendant that a small claims action had been instituted against it.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 428
  • Page 429
  • Page 430
  • Page 431
  • Page 432
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 602
  • 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