• 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

In re the Paternity of R.M., No. 45A04-1001-JP-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

The defense of laches can apply in paternity actions.

In the Matter of the Paternity of: P.R., No. 36A01-1005-JP-255, ____ N.E.2d ______ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly took judicial notice of record in another proceeding, pursuant to Evidence Rule 201 as amended effective Jan. 2010, and permissibly did so post-hearing; the parties had the right to be heard on the notice but failed to demand it, thereby waiving the opportunity, although the better practice would have been for the trial court to have given the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking the judicial notice and issuing its order.

Saffold v. State, No. 49A05-1003-CR-180, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)

December 28, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Under both the 4th Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, officer safety permitted a second pat-down search of motorist stopped for traffic infraction after officer reasonably suspected motorist might be armed, had him exit the vehicle, and found ammunition on his person in the initial pat-down and more ammunition in the vehicle.

Dawson v. State, No. 49A02-1001-CR-155, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)

December 28, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Post-Conviction Rule 2 applies only to belated appeals of convictions or sentences and accordingly does not allow a belated appeal of a probation revocation.

Deloney v. State, No. 22A01-0906-CR-273, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)

December 28, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

DNA evidence is not sufficiently relevant to be admissible when the defendant “could not be excluded from a possibly infinite number of people matching the crime-scene DNA and the DNA expert cannot offer a statistical probability whether the crime scene DNA came from the defendant.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 497
  • Go to page 498
  • Go to page 499
  • Go to page 500
  • Go to page 501
  • 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