• 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

Lorenz v. Anonymous Physician #1, No. 28A01-1501-CT-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2016).

February 22, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Because the alleged negligence took place before plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, the cause of action was an asset of his bankruptcy estate and the bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest for purposes of prosecuting the action. Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was reopened and the bankruptcy trustee was substituted as plaintiff on the proposed complaint.

In re Adoption of A.A., No. 48A02-1505-AD-328, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2016).

February 22, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The burden of proof on a petition to modify an existing order of grandparent visitation rights is on the petitioner to show the modification is in the best interests of the child.

Miller v. State, No. 49A05-1507-CR-789, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2016).

February 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Arrest for resisting law enforcement violated defendant’s well-established right to walk away; bare report of a “disturbance” did not give probable cause for arrest, nor did record support claim that she was stopped to be cited for jaywalking. Subsequent search incident to arrest therefore violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

State v. Hargrave, No. 82A01-1504-CR-137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 2, 2016).

February 8, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

A person who holds a CDL license at the time of committing a traffic violation may not participate in a diversion program or have judgment deferred on that conviction.

Harbert v. State, No. 79A02-1412-CR-874, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 4, 2016).

February 8, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Double-jeopardy protections did not entitle co-defendants to dismissal of charges after State’s witness violated motion in limine; court refused to adopt more liberal State-law standard for such claims.
Defendant was not entitled to relief from judgment based on “newly discovered evidence”; he did not have creditable evidence on hand, but merely wanted to use so-called “evidence” of subsequent news stories as excuse for further discovery in hopes of obtaining exonerating evidence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 206
  • Page 207
  • Page 208
  • Page 209
  • Page 210
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 408
  • 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