• 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

Jewell v. State, No. 32A04-1003-CR-187, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

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

Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to counsel were not violated when police had minor, for whom defendant was charged with assisting to get a tattoo, call the defendant and elicit statements police recorded about defendant’s prior criminal sexual conduct with the minor.

Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No. 41A01-1005-CT-225, ____ N.E.2d ____ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

An insurer can be required to pay prejudgment interest in excess of uninsured and/or underinsured motorist limits in an action brought by an insured for failure to pay uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 506
  • Go to page 507
  • Go to page 508
  • Go to page 509
  • Go to page 510
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 595
  • 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