• 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

Lake County Trust Company v. Advisory Plan Commission of Lake County, No. 37S03-0904-CV-192m, __N.E.2d__ (Ind., Apr. 28, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Governmental entities are not immune from sanctions imposed pursuant to Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. Mediated agreement on subdivision plan could not be final until approved by Plan Commission at an open meeting subject to the Open Door statutes.

Moore v. Moore, No. 49A02-0810-CV-978, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Protective order prohibiting only threats or violence but permitting contact erroneously did not address petitioner’s concerns with harassment or provide relief necessary to prevent violence or threats of violence as required by statute.

Hayworth v. State, No. 07A01-0804-CR-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Continuing objection procedure requires counsel to remain silent during the subsequent admission of the class of evidence subject to the objection. Search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause due to insufficient corroboration of informant’s statements. Affiant detective’s misleading statements amounted to deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct which “good faith” doctrine would not excuse to save the search.

Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, __ U.S. __ (April 21, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, J. Stevens, S. Alito, S. Breyer, SCOTUS

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Payday Today, Inc. v. Defreeuw, No. 71A05-0804-CV-253, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 9, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, B. Barteau

Because payday loan company did not unambiguously include interest in its agreement with the borrower, it cannot recover interest from that borrower.

  • « 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 589
  • 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