• 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

M.S. v. C.S., No. 03A01-1003-DR-140, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Child custody statute does not authorize a parent to obtain “joint custody with third parties by simply filing a joint petition with a trial court, because to do so would allow parents and third parties to circumvent the requirements of the Adoption Act.”

Forman v. Penn, No. 33A01-1007-CT-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Boehm

When insurer intervened in tort suit and obtained summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim it had no duty to defend, without a Trial Rule 54 determination by the trial judge of “no just reason for delay” and “an express direction for the entry of judgment” there was no appealable final judgment on the duty to defend issue.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.S.O., No. 64A05-1005-JT-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Riley

Failure of Child Services to provide father with notice of hearings and copies of all orders in the CHINS phase of proceedings, when Child Services knew father’s name and whereabouts, violated Due Process and required reversal of termination of father’s parental rights.

Britt v. State, No. 02A03-1004-CR-253, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Britt v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Mathias, J.)-When robbery defendant called his brother as a witness and did not attack the brother’s credibility, the brother’s prior robbery conviction was inadmissible character evidence.

Segar v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Defendant did not waive his objection to the admission of the marijuana found on his person when he earlier made no objection to officers’ “foundational” testimony that material in his pocket “resembled” and “was believed to be” marijuana.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 502
  • Go to page 503
  • Go to page 504
  • Go to page 505
  • Go to page 506
  • 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