• 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

Hill v. State, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2012).

January 27, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Standard for assessing effective performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the Baum “due-course-of-law” standard, not the two-prong Sixth Amendment Strickland standard.

Bowling v. State, No. 35A04-1107-CR-407, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2012).

January 27, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Guilty plea judge’s failure to advise defendant of right to appeal sentence did not make agreed waiver of the right to appeal open plea sentence unenforceable, when record showed defendant had read the waiver agreement, gone over it with defense counsel, and agreed to it.

Long v. State, No. 49A02-1105-CR-381, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2012).

January 27, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Master commissioner, given the same statutory authority as a magistrate, was accordingly not authorized to impose sentence following a guilty plea.

Ind. Dept. of Ins. v. Everhart, No. 84S01-1105-CV-28, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 20, 2012).

January 26, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund was not entitled to a reduction in the award of damages to account for the chance that the plaintiff would have died even in the absence of the physician’s negligence, because of how the trial court’s particular findings of fact interact with the rules for calculating a set-off.

Fletcher v. State, No. 79A02-1009-CR-1096, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2012).

January 20, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

The date of counsel’s appearance, not of counsel’s appointment, determines whether a defendant’s pro se Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial motion is valid.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 455
  • Go to page 456
  • Go to page 457
  • Go to page 458
  • Go to page 459
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 586
  • 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