• 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

Whitely v. State, No. 49A02-1501-CR-50, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Inventory search of vehicle was not unreasonable despite officers’ significant deviation from written department policy for such searches; breach of policy, without more, did not show that the inventory was pretext for an investigatory search.

Wartell v. Lee, No. 02A03-1503-PL-81, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

An allegedly defamatory statement related to a person’s trade, profession, office, or occupation is not defamatory per se, but the statement must impute a serious level of misconduct in a way that does not require reference to extrinsic facts for context.

Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-1504-CR-193, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2015).

November 30, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Fleeing from police by auto, then by foot, was one continuous act of fleeing and therefore, under federal double jeopardy principles, could support only one conviction for resisting law enforcement.

Abernathy v. Gulden, No. 45A03-1503-MI-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2015).

November 30, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Riley

Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e), requiring the BMV to use the dates of the offenses rather than the dates of the judgments in determining a person’s status as a HTV, is a procedural amendment which does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.

Hilligoss v. State, No. 34A02-1506-CR-529, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015).

November 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Failing to advise defendant of constitutional rights before accepting his admission to violating probation is a fundamental violation of due process, requiring remand for new revocation hearing. Extensions of probation for previous violations exceeded one additional year in violation of I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(2).

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 204
  • Go to page 205
  • Go to page 206
  • Go to page 207
  • Go to page 208
  • 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