• 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

G.N. v. IDCS (In re T.N.), No. 49A05-1101-JC-15, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

One parent’s admission is insufficient to prove a child is a CHINS when the child’s other parent contests that allegation; due process requires a fact-finding hearing before the court declares the child is a CHINS.

K.S. v. B.W., No. 22A05-1102-DR-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Ind. Code 31-9-2-35.5, defining a de facto custodian, applies only to custody proceedings after a paternity determination, actions for child custody or modification of custody, and temporary placement of a child in need of services taken into custody; it does not apply in the case of visitation rights of a boyfriend over an ex-girlfriend’s child.

Conder v. State, No. 49A02-1012-PC-1404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Depending on the manner in which they are used (here, to kick a person to death), feet and shoes can be a statutory “deadly weapon.”

Reese v. State, No. 38A05-1104-CR-171, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Trial court erred in concluding defendant was not indigent for purposes of appointment of counsel paid at public expense.

Vaughn v. State, No. 45A05-1102-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, N. Vaidik

Mistrial was required when bailiff, at court’s direction, restrained defendant and placed a hand over defendant’s mouth as jurors were leaving the courtroom after defendant, about to testify in his own behalf, launched into a criticism of defense counsel which continued despite court’s orders to stop.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 470
  • Go to page 471
  • Go to page 472
  • Go to page 473
  • Go to page 474
  • 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