• 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

Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, No. 94S00-0912-CQ-559, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 13, 2010)

May 14, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

An entity that purchases and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Ind. Code § 9-22-3-11(e) when it no longer owns the vehicle upon receipt of the certificate of title.

Buss v. Harris, No. 52A02-0911-CV-1088, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2010)

May 14, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Where defendant was not determined to be a sexually violent predator at sentencing, the Department of Correction could not later make that determination. Thus, the trial court properly declined to require the defendant to register as a sexually violent predator for life.

Merchant v. State, No. 02A05-0910-CR-610, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Uncuffed driver with second officer five feet from driver’s side door while first officer was standing by the open driver’s door was “unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment” so that warrantless search of compartment was permissible under Arizona v. Gant.

Baugh v. State, No. 18A04-0911-CR-621 , __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden, T. Crone

Defendant’s argument that live testimony on sexually violent predator status was required by the SVP statute was waived by defendant’s failure at sentencing to object to its absence.

Brogan v. State, No. 57A04-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, P. Sullivan

When sentence for sex offense was completely served, and original sentencing order did not require sex offender registration, and offender was imprisoned in another county for an unrelated offense when he filed his “motion” under sex offense cause number to be relieved of statute-imposed registration duty on ex post facto grounds, the sex offense court was not the appropriate forum for the registration challenge.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 534
  • Go to page 535
  • Go to page 536
  • Go to page 537
  • Go to page 538
  • 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