• 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 Adoption of Unborn Child B.W., No. 03S04-0810-CV-560, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 26, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme, T. Boehm

Biological father’s consent to the adoption of his child was not irrevocably implied when he failed to file a motion to contest in the adoption court but did take concurrent steps to establish paternity and preserve and assert his parental rights in another court.

In re N.S. and J.M., No. 32A05-0902-JV-78, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Trial court erred by ordering that DCS pay the GAL fees associated with the underlying CHINS proceedings; Indiana Code §§ 31-40-3-2 and 33-24-6-4 require that the county, not DCS, is responsible for the GAL fees.

Webster v. State, No. 71A03-0902-CR-78, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. Barnes

Search of traffic stop passenger’s purse, on basis officer thought it looked “stretched” and might therefore contain a firearm, violated Art. 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Stokes v. State, No. 43A04-0811-CR-655, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Alternate’s conversation with deliberating jurors did not require a mistrial when trial judge polled jurors and all indicated they were not influenced by alternate.

Helton v. State, No. 20S04-0901-PC-41, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Defendant who pled guilty after a day of trial failed at his post-conviction hearing to prove that counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress satisfied the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance test; assuming for analysis that the motion to suppress would have been granted, defendant still had to prove prejudice in the P-C.R. 1 hearing by showing that the state would not have had sufficient evidence to convict him had trial continued.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 562
  • Go to page 563
  • Go to page 564
  • Go to page 565
  • Go to page 566
  • 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