• 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

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.

Castillo-Aguilar v. State, No. 20A04-1003-CR-195, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2012).

January 20, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Some questions on police “information sheet,” purportedly used for administrative booking purposes, were investigative in nature under the circumstances of the case, and as the defendant was in custody when given the sheet to fill out the investigative questions were Miranda “interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings before defendant filled the sheet out in order for his answers to be admissible in evidence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 458
  • Go to page 459
  • Go to page 460
  • Go to page 461
  • Go to page 462
  • 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