• 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

In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.B., No. 03A05-0912-JV-676, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Trial court did not err in denying appellate counsel for mother in TPR proceedings; even if mother had requested appellate counsel, she failed to make any effort for the purpose of an appeal and was unlikely to prevail on the merits.

Bishop v. Housing Auth. of South Bend, No. 71A03-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Tenant had right to jury trial on the ultimate outcome of ejectment proceedings, but not on the prejudgment immediate possession hearing.

State ex rel. Crain Heating Air Cond. & Refrig., Inc. v. Clark Circuit Court, No. 10S00-0910-OR-500, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

If a ruling involves the granting, modifying, or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction and has not been entered within ten days after the hearing thereon, there has been a delay in ruling and an interested party may immediately praecipe for withdrawal under the procedure provided in Trial Rule 53.1(E); it is not necessary for a party to await the thirty-day period described in Trial Rule 53.1(A) before filing a praecipe for withdrawal.

Palacios v. State, No. 29A02-0908-CR-750, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2010)

January 29, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, M. Barnes

Daughter’s translation of her mother’s statements to investigating officer were admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception.

Skinner v. State, No. 55A01-0811-CR-543, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2010)

January 29, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness through the attorney-client relationship, particularly when there were adequate alternative sources of impeachment available to defendant.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 544
  • Go to page 545
  • Go to page 546
  • Go to page 547
  • Go to page 548
  • 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