• 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

Tracy v. Morell, No. 59A01-1009-PL-488, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Sale of tractor with altered identification number was subject to rescission on grounds of mistake and public policy, and buyer was entitled to recovery of payments with interest.

Konopasek v. State, No. 25S03-1012-CR-669, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 5, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

When defendant testified he forthrightly had reported the fight he had been in to his probation officer, conveying the impression he was honest with the officer and hence honest generally, the State was entitled to establish a motive to lie about self-defense in the fight by eliciting the fact the defendant was on probation for methamphetamine offenses and faced significant jail time if probation was revoked.

Lacey v. State, No. 02S05-1010-CR-601, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

[T]he Indiana Constitution does not require prior judicial authorization for the execution of a warrant without knocking and announcing when justified by exigent circumstances known by police when the warrant was obtained,” although obtaining such prior judicial authorization is the better police practice.

Wilkins v. State, No. 02S03-1010-CR-604, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Police had sufficient reasons to execute search warrant without knocking and announcing, and in any event the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applied to decisions not to knock and announce.

Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1008-PC-508, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Defendant should have been provided with a copy of the in-court recording of Spanish interpreter’s guilty plea hearing translations for the defendant, after counsel had detected an irregularity in the translation when listening to the recording.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 485
  • Go to page 486
  • Go to page 487
  • Go to page 488
  • Go to page 489
  • 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