• 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

T.R.W. Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. v. Moore, No. 73S05-0909-CV-404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 13, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Wrongful death damages for dependent child’s loss of father erroneously included period of father’s projected life span after child would be emancipated; remittitur ordered to correct error. When fault had been erroneously attributed to nonparties, retrial of the fault allocation was required.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.A., No. 62S01-1003-JV-148, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 5, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Evidence to terminate father’s parental rights was insufficient in this case in which the child had not been living with the father.

Hopper v. State, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme, T. Boehm

A defendant seeking to waive counsel and proceed pro se should not only be advised of the dangers of going to trial without a lawyer, as required by Faretta v. California, but should also “be informed that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Baugh v. State, No. 18S04-1007-CR-398, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, Supreme

Defendant could not complain that judge erred by determining sexually violent predator status without expert testimony required by statute, since defense counsel invited the error by stating judge would make the determination based on the “doctors’ reports.”

Carr v. State, No. 25S04-1004-CR-219, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

For purposes of Criminal Rule 4 analysis, “[e]mploying the rhetoric of ‘delay chargeable to the State’ should be avoided.” Detective’s practice of congenially agreeing defendant had a right to the Miranda counsel he asked for and then continuing the interrogation violated the Edwards rule that interrogation must immediately cease after a counsel demand.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 514
  • Go to page 515
  • Go to page 516
  • Go to page 517
  • Go to page 518
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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