• 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

Pelley v. State, No. 71S05-0808-CR-446, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 19, 2009)

February 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one-year limitation does not include the time during which trial proceedings have been stayed pending interlocutory appeal. Appointment of a special prosecutor was not required under an appearance of impropriety standard when circumstances indicated regular prosecutor had no actual conflict.

Knoebel v. Clark County Superior Court No. 1, No. 22A01-0808-CV-384, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2009)

February 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Probation officer demoted from chief probation officer status was not entitled to retain the salary increase for a chief probation officer.

R.W. v. State, No. 31A05-0803-JV-161, __ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2009)

February 20, 2009 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Delinquency initial hearing record did not show juvenile was given a meaningful opportunity to confer with his parent before they waived his right to counsel.

State v. Brown, No. 38A05-0810-CR-573, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2009)

February 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: J. Kirsch, Supreme

After officers had completed their response to a complaint about a noisy party and were leaving the site, their demand to see the license of a motorist who was arriving at the party was an unreasonable search under the Indiana Constitution.

McCullough v. State, No. 49S02-0809-CR-508, __ N.E.2d (Ind., Feb. 10, 2009)

February 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme, T. Boehm

(1) in the exercise of the appellate authority to review and revise criminal sentences, a court may decrease or increase the sentence; (2) the State may not by appeal or cross-appeal initiate a challenge to a sentence imposed by a trial court; and (3) if a defendant seeks appellate review and revision of a sentence, the State may respond and urge the imposition of a greater sentence without the necessity of proceeding by cross-appeal.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 582
  • Go to page 583
  • Go to page 584
  • Go to page 585
  • Go to page 586
  • 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