• 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

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Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness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.

Bules v. Marshall County, No. 50S03-1001-CV-57, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 27, 2010)

January 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme, T. Boehm

The Indiana Tort Claims Act’s immunity for losses caused by temporary weather conditions during the period of reasonable response to a weather condition lasts at least until the weather condition has stabilized.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 551
  • Go to page 552
  • Go to page 553
  • Go to page 554
  • Go to page 555
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 594
  • 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