• 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

Gingerich v. State, No. 43A05-1101-CR-27, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2012).

December 13, 2012 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Reverses twelve-year old’s conspiracy to commit murder conviction when counsel had only four days to prepare for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction hearing.

Wisner v. Laney, No. 71S03-1201-CT-7,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 12, 2012).

December 13, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

For purposes of the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute, a written settlement offer must be made within one year following the filing of a claim to be eligible for prejudgment interest, and the settlement offer can be made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.

Kosarko v. Padula, No. 45S03-1206-CT-310, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 12, 2012).

December 13, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“[T]he Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute abrogates and supplants the common law prejudgment interest rules in cases covered by the statute.”

Inman v. State Farm Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 41S01-1108-CT-515, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 12, 2012).

December 13, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

The Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute applies to an action by an insured against an insurer to recover benefits under the insured’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policy, and prejudgment interest can be awarded in excess of the policy limits set forth in an insured’s UIM policy.

Teague v. State, No. 89A01-1202-CR-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).

December 7, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Holds under the facts in this case that “a 911 recording that involves statements by a caller that were relayed from a victim [were] admissible where the victim had personal knowledge of the underlying incident but the caller did not,” on the basis that the caller’s frame of mind and lack of opportunity to reflect qualified her 911 statements as excited utterances.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 440
  • Page 441
  • Page 442
  • Page 443
  • Page 444
  • 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