• 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

Cundiff v. State, No. 31A05-1008-CR-607, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Defendant incarcerated on other charges but released on recognizance on the charges at issue was not eligible for the Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial remedy.

Turner v. Rogers, No. 10–10, __ U.S. __ (June 20, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Thomas, S. Breyer, SCOTUS

In civil contempt proceedings to enforce child support, “where . . . the custodial parent (entitled to receive the support) is unrepresented by counsel, the State need not provide counsel to the noncustodial parent (required to provide the support),” subject to the “caveat . . . that the State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”

J.M. v. M.A., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”

D.M. v. State, No. 49S02-1101-JV-11, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind., June 22, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Procedures for waiver of juvenile’s rights were adequately followed, but “JUVENILE WAIVER” form used by police is criticized.

Foster v. State, No. 02A03-1010-CR-596, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2011)

June 17, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May, W. Garrard

Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 496
  • Page 497
  • Page 498
  • Page 499
  • Page 500
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 602
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs