• 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

Kevin T. Scripture, M.D. et al. v. Julia and Steven Roberts, No. 49A02-1504-CT-211, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2016).

February 2, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Doctors’ conclusory affidavits failed to raise genuine issue of fact; affidavits merely restated the denials in their pleadings and did not cite facts to support that they met the standard of care or did not cause plaintiffs’ damages.

Coleman v. State, No. 47A01-1506-IF-659, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

Speed-limit sign facing southbound traffic, reducing speed limit from 55 to 35 mph, was ineffective against northbound motorist, despite county ordinance setting 35 mph speed limit unless otherwise designated; by state law, default speed limit for the road was 55 mph unless “appropriate signs giving notice of the altered limit are erected on the street or highway.”

Rhodes v. State, No. 49A02-1503-CR-173, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, M. May, T. Crone

Inventory search of defendant’s vehicle was unconstitutional, absent proof of existence of (or compliance with) established police procedures for such searches.

State v. Hancock, No. 39A05-1506-CR-633, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Elements of Ohio residential burglary offense were not “substantially similar” to Indiana offense, and therefore did not establish serious violent felon (SVF) status.

Rondeau v. State, No. 49A02-1505-PC-427, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying some requests for subpoenas, despite not issuing “a finding on the record” under P-C.R. 1(9)(b); subpoenas either were not specific enough to establish proposed witnesses’ relevance, or relevance was only to matters available at trial or on direct appeal.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 200
  • Go to page 201
  • Go to page 202
  • Go to page 203
  • Go to page 204
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 400
  • 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