• 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

Heaton v. State, No. 48A02-1104-CR-404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2011).

December 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

In a probation revocation, the trial court must apply the preponderance standard in determining whether a new offense was committed; points out that a line of Court of Appeals decisions saying probable cause is the standard failed to note the 1983 statutory change requiring preponderance.

Renzulli v. State, No. 32S04-1102-CR-117, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 29,2011).

December 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Circumstances sufficiently corroborated concerned citizen’s tip of a possibly intoxicated driver to support an investigative stop.

State v. Economic Freedom Fund, No. 07S00-1008-MI-411, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2011).

December 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, S. David, Supreme

The First Amendment claim against the Indiana Autodialer Law by an entity that uses an automated dialing device to deliver prerecorded political messages would likely fail; further, there is no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the entity’s claim that the Autodialer Law’s live-operator requirement materially burdens its right to engage in political speech in violation of the state constitution.

Bryant v. State, No. 45A03-1101-CR-11, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2011).

December 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Suspect, arrested driving his car for resisting arrest after he failed to stop the car earlier, was properly strip-searched at the arrest site for drugs when officers had reasonable suspicion he was concealing contraband on his person.

McCloud v. State, No. 49A05-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2011).

December 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Neither the Interstate Agreement on Detainers nor the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum procedures applied to defendant while he was in federal custody for ten months; Criminal Rule 4 consequently was applicable, and the time the defendant was in federal custody was attributable to the defendant under the Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year rule.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 468
  • Go to page 469
  • Go to page 470
  • Go to page 471
  • Go to page 472
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 596
  • 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