• 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

Butler v. Indiana Dep't of Ins., No. 49S05-0805-CV-216, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 7, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Under Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2 (1999) on the wrongful death of unmarried adults with no dependents, if medical providers issue statements of charges for health care services but thereafter accept a reduced amount in full satisfaction of the charges due to contractual arrangements with the patient’s health insurers, Medicare, or Medicaid, the amount recoverable for reasonable medical and hospital expenses necessitated by the alleged wrongful conduct is the total amount ultimately accepted after such contractual adjustments, not the total of charges billed.

In re Adoption of Infants H, No. 29S02-0904-CV-140, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Supreme Court reversed trial court’s final adoption order, because it was improper to waive various legislative safeguards designed to protect infants who are proposed for adoption, including the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

Rivera v. Illinois, No. 07-9995, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 27, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Ginsburg, SCOTUS

State law, not the Constitution, determines the consequences of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge, when all jurors selected are qualified and unbiased.

Tyler v. State, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, F. Sullivan, T. Boehm

[A] party may not introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.

Gray v. State, No. 10S01-0808-CR-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Defendant’s behavior and statements at the two separate robberies were sufficient, without more, to prove that he had a “gun” in his pocket, but his apprehension immediately after the second robbery with only an electric shaver in his pocket precluded an “armed” enhancement for that robbery.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 580
  • Go to page 581
  • Go to page 582
  • Go to page 583
  • Go to page 584
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 595
  • 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