• 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

Sample v. State, No. 45S03-1006-CR-338, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 30, 2010)

July 2, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Error in habitual offender instruction that jury “must” find habitual status if it finds priors proven was compounded, not avoided, by a “law and the facts” instruction which told jury the instructions were its “best source in determining what the law is.”

Duran v. State, No. 45S03-0910-CR-430, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 30, 2010)

July 2, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme, T. Boehm

An arrest warrant confers limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within; when police knew only the building in which the suspect lived, an anonymous bystander’s direction to a specific apartment was not sufficiently reliable to confer the required “reason to believe” for a forced entry.

Wilson v. Isaacs, No. 09S05-1003-CV-149, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 28, 2010)

July 2, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

A law enforcement officer’s use of force in excess of the reasonable force authorized by statute is not shielded from liability under the “enforcement of a law” immunity provided in Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3(8).

Fowler v. State, No. 49A02-0910-CR-1037, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2010)

July 2, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

A police booking printout was “administrative,” not investigative, and hence was admissible under the public record hearsay exception; the booking printout also was not “testimonial” under the Crawford confrontation rule.

Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., No. 06S05-0907-CV-332, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 29, 2010)

July 2, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Primarily because Plaintiff is connected with the construction Defendants through a network or chain of contracts in which the parties allocated their respective risks, duties, and remedies, those contracts, and not negligence law, govern the outcome of Plaintiff’s claims.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 526
  • Go to page 527
  • Go to page 528
  • Go to page 529
  • Go to page 530
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 587
  • 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