• 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

French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)

May 27, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.

Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 12, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Affirms trial court refusal to instruct on right to resist illegal police entry of home, as “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Davis v. State, No. 45A05-1008-CR-502, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The “trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police detective to testify as a skilled witness that the denominations of money found on the defendant were indicative of drug dealing.”

Kentucky v. King, No. 09–1272, __ U.S. __ (May 16, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Ginsburg, S. Alito, SCOTUS

Exigent circumstances exception permitting warrantless search of a home when police reasonably believe criminal evidence is being destroyed within applies even though the police’s lawful knock and announce at the house door is what prompts the inhabitants to destroy the evidence.

Coleman v. State, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 18, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause does not preclude State “from retrying a defendant where in the first trial the jury acquitted the defendant of murder with respect to one victim but failed to return a verdict on a charge of attempted murder with respect to another victim.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 499
  • Page 500
  • Page 501
  • Page 502
  • Page 503
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 601
  • 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