• 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

Bailey v. State, No. 49S02-0812-CR-00630, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 18, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Disorderly conduct’s “tumultuous conduct” may occur “when the aggressor appears well on his way to inflicting serious bodily injury but relents in the face of superior force or creative resistance.”

Mathews v. State, No. 01A02-0901-CR-44, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

When probationer in open court was informed of date for revocation fact-finding hearing, and would have learned of the rescheduling of the hearing had she appeared on the original date scheduled, she could be tried in absentia when she did not appear at the rescheduled hearing.

Burke v. Bennett, No. 84S01-0904-CV-148, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 16, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Mayoral candidate’s allegation that his opponent was disqualified due to certain pre-election employment was inapplicable to establish ineligibility in a post-campaign election contest.

Spar v. Cha, No. 45S05-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 16, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Incurred risk is not a defense to medical malpractice based on negligence or lack of informed consent; plaintiff’s consents to prior surgeries were admissible to counter her lack-of-informed-consent claim to the extent that claim was based on failure to inform her of typical risks in the procedure.

Davis v. State, No. 45A03-0808-CR-407, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2009)

June 16, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Search based on a warrant based in part on information obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment was upheld when the remaining information for the warrant was not illegally obtained and sufficed to show probable cause.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 572
  • Go to page 573
  • Go to page 574
  • Go to page 575
  • Go to page 576
  • 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