• 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

Appeals

Leatherman v. State, No. 47A04-1711-CR-2711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

An individual participating in a needle exchange program may be found guilty of possession of paraphernalia if he intended to use syringes for unlawful ends; however, to sustain a conviction for maintaining a common nuisance for the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance from a vehicle, the State must show that it has been used on more than one occasion for that purpose.

Cosgray v. French Lick Resort & Casino, No. 59A01-1710-CT-2512 ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Hotel did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from a criminal attack by an unknown assailant on their premises.

State v. Neff, No. 18A02-1708-IF-1933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

An officeholder need not abandon each and every statutory duty before removal from office may be warranted. “[F]ailure, over a period of years, to perform a critical, official and mandatory duty for a clerk-treasurer falls squarely within the confines of Article VI Sections 7 and 8 of the Indiana Constitution and our legislature’s response via the Removal Statute.”

Estate of Staggs v. ADS Logistics Co., LLC, No. 64A03-1708-CT-1961, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Company that warehoused steel coil that became unsecured during travel killing other motorists had no duty to the motorists killed. It is unforeseeable that a warehousing entity’s conduct in warehousing the cargo or in loading the cargo onto another entity’s vehicle at the instruction of the other entity’s driver would result in harm to motorists.

State v. Myers, No. 69A01-1708-CR-1805, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 24, 2018).

April 30, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

A defendant must object to a trial date set beyond the one-year guarantee in Criminal Rule 4(C) in time to permit the trial court to reset the trial for a date within the proper period.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 146
  • Page 147
  • Page 148
  • Page 149
  • Page 150
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 410
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs