• 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

Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09–150, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, C. Thomas, R. Ginsburg, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., No. 89A05-1009-CT-549, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Ind. Code § 27-7-5-4(b) requires a per person liability limit comparison to determine underinsurance, and the mandatory per person limit for underinsured coverage pursuant to Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2 is $50,000.

B&B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Co., No. 45A04-1002-PL-183, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

A landowner, who raises the subterranean water table on his land and creates a federally regulated wetland, may not invoke the common enemy doctrine of water diversion and shield himself from liability to adjoining landowners whose property also became federally regulated wetlands.

Boss v. State, No. 49A02-1002-CR-225, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2011)

February 25, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

As dog bite and dog control ordinances defendant admitted violating were not criminal, the ordinance judgments did not bar defendant’s prosecution for animal bite and failure to immunize from rabies misdemeanors even though all were based on the same conduct.

Burke v. State, No. 49A02-1006-CR-660, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2011)

February 25, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Sentence enhancement for burglary of a structure used for religious worship does not violate federal Constitution’s Establishment Clause or Indiana Constitution’s prohibition of government preference for a particular religion.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 507
  • Go to page 508
  • Go to page 509
  • Go to page 510
  • Go to page 511
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to 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