• 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

Owens v. State, No. 29A02-1002-CR-390, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Policeman’s testimony that defendant had not called him, after the officer left his card on defendant’s door with a note asking defendant to call, did not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right.

Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.

Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

“HUD [mortgage] servicing responsibilities . . . are binding conditions precedent that must be complied with before a mortgagee has the right to foreclose on a HUD property.”

Lombardi v. Vandeusen, No. 10A01-0910-CV-491, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Trial court erroneously concluded jurisdiction to modify support was not properly with Illinois court under UIFSA; ex parte pre-hearing conference, from which pro se obligee was excluded despite request to attend, at which evidence was discussed and documents were exchanged violated due process and results in opinion’s directing that case be assigned to a different judicial officer on remand.

Carter v. Grace Whitney Properties, No. 82A04-1003-SC-177, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Local rules authorizing contempt to enforce “personal order of garnishment,” an order to debtor to pay a money judgment in installments, violates Indiana Constitution; “personal orders of garnishment” may be used to compel debtor to apply property creditor shows is not exempt from execution; creditor may not use successive proceedings supplemental without showing new facts giving rise to belief the judgment debtor has property or income to satisfy the judgment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 504
  • Go to page 505
  • Go to page 506
  • Go to page 507
  • Go to page 508
  • 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