• 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

Ervin v. State, No. 29A05-1109-CR-454, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012

May 31, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Trial court properly concluded that evidence should not be suppressed as Ind. Code § 9-30-2-2 was not implicated. The statute provides that an officer may not arrest a person “for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on an Indiana highway” unless the officer is in uniform or a marked police vehicle, but defendant was not arrested for violating a law regulating the use of a motor vehicle.

Termination of Parent-Child Rel. of D.K., No. 22A01-1110-JT-485, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012).

May 31, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

“Evidence Rule 201(b) now allows trial courts to take judicial notice of records of other court proceedings, but if a court does so, there must be some effort made to include such ‘other’ records in the record of the current proceeding.”

Martinez v. Deeter, No. 32A01-1108-DR-359, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2012).

May 31, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Survivor benefits paid to children due to the death of a custodial parent’s subsequent spouse are not included in the custodial parent’s weekly gross income.

Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10–1320, 566 U.S. ____ (May 24, 2012).

May 25, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: J. Roberts, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

The jury foreperson’s report that the jury was unanimous regarding the charges of capital murder and first-degree murder in his favor was not a final resolution when the trial ended in a mistrial, and so the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrying defendant on those charges.

Adams v. State, No. 49A05-1107-CR-372,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2012).

May 25, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

The definition of mature stalks of marijuana is not unconstitutionally vague in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 444
  • Go to page 445
  • Go to page 446
  • Go to page 447
  • Go to page 448
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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