• 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

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Former defense counsel, who had withdrawn when another client, defendant’s jailmate, became a state’s witness, could not be compelled to disclose what he had learned from the prospective witness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

Johnson v. Johnson, No. 46S04-0907-CV-00346, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2010)

January 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Dissolution agreement for husband to pay wife for her interest in the family farm, although silent on the subject, must have contemplated the regular annual renewal of the farm’s debt to finance its operations, but not the higher level of debt necessary to finance husband’s obligations to wife; trial court erred in modifying wife’s lien to allow husband to finance his divorce obligations.

State v. Haldeman, No. 55S00-0906-CR-266, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 15, 2010)

January 22, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Even though statute requiring preliminary appellate review of wiretap warrant has been repealed, Criminal Rule 25’s requirement of preliminary appellate review of wiretap warrants must be complied with.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 556
  • Go to page 557
  • Go to page 558
  • Go to page 559
  • Go to page 560
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 599
  • 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