• 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

Mccabe V. Comm’r Ind. Dept of Ins., No. 49S02-1010-CV-602, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 29, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Attorney fees can be recovered under the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death Statute (“AWDS”), Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2.

Hematology-Oncology of Ind., P.C. V. Fruits, No. 49S05-1106-CV-387, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 29, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Litigation expenses can be recovered under the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death Statute (“AWDS”), Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2.

Citizens State Bank of New Castle V. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 76S03-1009-CV-515, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 29, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Strict foreclosure is a mechanism to place before the court the question of whether the doctrine of merger should be enforced, but “’[w]hether the conveyance of the fee to the mortgagee results in a merger of the mortgage and the fee depends primarily upon the intention of the parties, particularly that of the mortgagee.’”

Cartwright v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-214, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik

Finds the State’s four race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenge to only African-American venireperson to have been pretextual because the trial judge made no finding which of the four reasons it relied on to reject the Batson challenge and because the State failed to “develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons.”

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, No. 09–10876, __ U.S. __ (June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Ginsburg, SCOTUS

The “Confrontation Clause [does not] permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement. The accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 479
  • Go to page 480
  • Go to page 481
  • Go to page 482
  • Go to page 483
  • 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