• 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: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C., 73A01-1109-CR-468, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2012).

June 28, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

A prosecutor investigating a crime before charging someone without a grand jury has the same authority to grant use immunity as a prosecutor using a grand jury.

Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., No. 49S05-1111-CV-672, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 25, 2012).

June 28, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Defined “improvement to real property” as used in Indiana Code 32-30-1-5 as “(1) an addition to or betterment of real property; (2) that is permanent; (3) that enhances the real property’s capital value; (4) that involves the expenditure of labor or money; (5) that is designed to make the property more useful or valuable; and (6) that is not an ordinary repair.”

City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, No. 49A02-1108-CT-782, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2012).

June 28, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When a claimant’s tort claim notice contains a specific and definitive assessment of loss, recovery is limited to the loss described in the original notice, and if additional losses are discovered after the notice has been submitted then the claimant should amend the original notice or submit another notice in a timely manner.

Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, __ U.S. __ (June 18, 2012).

June 22, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Thomas, E. Kagan, S. Alito, S. Breyer, SCOTUS

Plurality opinion on whether Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an analyst’s forensic report through an expert witness; plurality holds in this case Clause did not preclude an expert’s testimony that defendant’s DNA profile matched a vaginal swab semen DNA profile produced by a Cellmark analyst who did not testify.

Orr v. State, No. 45A03-1107-CR-308, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2012).

June 22, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Evidence Rule 613(b) confers discretion to allow a prior inconsistent statement to be admitted before the witness has a chance to explain or deny or, in some circumstances, even when witness is not given any chance to explain or deny.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 439
  • Go to page 440
  • Go to page 441
  • Go to page 442
  • Go to page 443
  • 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