• 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

First Bank of Whiting v. 524, LLC, No. 45A04-1410-MI-476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2015).

July 23, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

To issue a tax deed pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(b) “there is implicit in the statute a sixth condition, which is that the petitioner is legally entitled to a tax deed after completing all of the requisite steps.”

State v. Terrell, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 55A01-1501-CR-9 (Ind. Ct. App. July 10, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Contraband found in probationer’s home was admissible; probationer waived search and seizure rights and agreed to “reasonable” searches as condition of probation, and search was not unreasonable (applying Vanderkolk v. State, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. June 9, 2015)).

Seal v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 48A02-1410-CR-775 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2015).

July 16, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

State’s inadvertent failure to preserve audio recordings of victims’ initial field interviews and subsequent follow-up interviews did not violate defendant’s rights; no law requires recording of victim interviews, and police did not intentionally sabotage or destroy the recordings they had attempted to make.

Wertz v. State, No. 48A04-1409-CR-427, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).

July 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

“GPS device is similar in nature to a computer or cell phone, and that such a device cannot be treated as a ‘container’ that may be searched pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.”

Cox v. State, No. 27A02-1412-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2015).

July 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Amelioration doctrine did not apply to defendant’s sentence because the legislature clearly stated in Ind. Code 1-1-5.5-21(b) that it did not intend the amelioration doctrine to apply.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 226
  • Go to page 227
  • Go to page 228
  • Go to page 229
  • Go to page 230
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 407
  • 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