• 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

Walker v. Pullen, No. 64S05-1101-CT-0006, ___ N.E.2d ____ (Ind., March 15, 2011)

March 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme

A court cannot grant a new trial unless the judge enters special findings as required by T.R. 59(J).

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co, No. 29A02-1008-PL-965, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2011)

March 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, M. May

In a coverage dispute regarding occurrence polices, the time of the damage, and not the time of the alleged negligent conduct that caused the damage, is the triggering event for coverage. Further, coverage under both policies were triggered under the circumstances of this case and damages are to be apportioned pursuant to the language of the insurance policies.

Gray v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-223, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2011)

March 11, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, J. Kirsch

Evidence of constructive possession of marijuana, found in defendant’s house under her coffee table next to two juveniles on the couch, was insufficient to convict.

White v. State, No. 15A01-1008-CR-463, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 9, 2011)

March 11, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Record of defendant’s felony conviction reached in another state when he was fifteen years old was insufficient to support habitual offender finding without additional evidence on the other state’s procedures assuring that he was convicted as an adult.

Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09–150, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, C. Thomas, R. Ginsburg, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 494
  • Go to page 495
  • Go to page 496
  • Go to page 497
  • Go to page 498
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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