• 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

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.

Hay v. Baumgartner, No. 43A03-0810-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 9, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Defendants’ stipulation to the entry of a preliminary injunction prevents them from now arguing that it was wrongfully in place, and thereby precludes their recovery of attorney’s fees for its entry.

In re T.S., No. 46S04-0904-JV-160, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 17, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

(1) Indiana Appellate Rule 14.1’s expedited appeals are available to the process of modifying dispositional decrees regarding child placement where a juvenile court does not follow DCS’s recommendation; (2) the juvenile court must accept DCS’s placement recommendations unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the recommendation is “unreasonable” or “contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child”; (3) a finding by the juvenile court that DCS’s recommendation is unreasonable or contrary to the child’s welfare and best interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error; and (4) the juvenile court’s placement determination in this case was not clearly erroneous.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 576
  • Go to page 577
  • Go to page 578
  • Go to page 579
  • Go to page 580
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 593
  • 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