• 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

Alter v. State, No. 85A04-1101-CR-44, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2011).

September 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

After conservation officer had been shown subject’s fishing license, further detention for questions based on officer’s hunch subject might have put marijuana in his duffle was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and required suppression of marijuana subject produced on officer’s command to “give me your marijuana.”

Kitchen v. Kitchen, et al, No. 27A04-1101-DR-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2011)

September 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Only parents, grandparents and step-parents have standing to pursue visitation with a child.

Branham v. Varble & Chastain, No. 62S01-1103-SC-14, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Aug. 30, 2011)

September 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Self-represented parties in small claims court do not forfeit the generic exemption statute and the Social Security exemptions even if the litigants do not know enough to plead them; even if an information of contempt has not been filed, a court does not err when it orders a party to return for status checks a limited number of times; orders to seek employment or to seek better employment are not a proper part of a proceeding supplemental.

Feuston v. State, No. 38A02-1011-CR-1175, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 19, 2011).

August 26, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Trial court has no duty to set a trial date when defendant absconds and fails to appear; Criminal Rule 4(C) one year did not begin to run until defendant’s notice of his incarceration in another county and request for trial were received by the trial court and the prosecutor; fact jail may have known of defendant’s presence in the other county was not attributable to court and prosecutor in this case.

Bex v. State, No. 53A01-1008-CR-422, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2011).

August 26, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Federal Constitution permits trial by a jury of five when a jury of six is provided for by law, without alternates by agreement, and, due to an emergency, a juror is excused; consent to trial by five under such circumstances may be given by counsel, as a matter of trial strategy.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 472
  • Go to page 473
  • Go to page 474
  • Go to page 475
  • Go to page 476
  • 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