• 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

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.

In re the Paternity of N.L.P., No. 45S03-0904-JV-133, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Where the parties in a domestic relations dispute sign a written agreement retaining the services of a guardian ad litem, the trial court is bound to enforce the terms of the agreement when awarding fees and expenses incurred by the GAL, unless the terms are contrary to public policy.

Cutter v. Classic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 49A05-0906-CV-315, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

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

Cutter v. Classic Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Ind. Ct. App., Crone, J.) – (1) Because employees’ claim against employer was completely distinct from employer’s claim against his insurance company, a distribution from the insurance company’s liquidation estate to the employer’s assignee did not implicate the prohibition against double recovery; (2) because a suit for the dissolution of an insurance company has been regarded as an equitable action, the suit was not triable to a jury.

Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Com'n, No. 39A01-0908-CV-408, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

(1) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for “travel, postage, and copying” costs under Trial Rule 41(E) (failure to prosecute); (2) because defendants were forced to defend against a frivolous and groundless claim, however, trial court did abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b).

Bond v. State, No. 71A03-0910-CR-457, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2010)

April 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Defendant failed to show that selection of his jury from Judicial Center list violated Sixth Amendment’s “fair cross section” requirement.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 543
  • Go to page 544
  • Go to page 545
  • Go to page 546
  • Go to page 547
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 597
  • 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