• 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

Termination of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., No. 34S02-0904-JV-147, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Nov. 30, 2009)

December 4, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme, T. Boehm

Conditioning the voluntary termination of parental rights on continuing post-adoption visitation irreconcilably conflicts with Indiana adoption law and is not permitted.

Baker v. Tremco, Inc., No. 29S02-0902-CV-00065, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 3, 2009)

December 4, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

A constructive discharge claim may rest on involuntary resignation, but only where the cause fits within the grounds recognized by Indiana decisions on retaliatory discharge.

Lindsey v. State, No. 29A02-0902-CR-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Officer reasonably concluded that car approached by armed robbery suspect might have been suspect’s car and exigent circumstances justified officer’s opening vehicle door wider to check for accomplices inside.

Holden v. State, No. 57A03-0903-CR-111, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Juror who asked a witness a question during a recess should have been examined by the court and parties as provided in Jury Rule 24, but any error in not following the Rule was harmless in light of court’s remedy of having the witness recalled and posing the individual juror’s recess question to the witness in the presence of the entire jury during trial.

Wright v. State, No. 49A04-0905-CR-259, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Dying stab victim’s response to question “who did this” from police officer trying to help staunch the wounds was not “testimonial” under Crawford doctrine and hence its admission did not violate defendant’s confrontation right.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 559
  • Go to page 560
  • Go to page 561
  • Go to page 562
  • Go to page 563
  • 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