• 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

Hicks v. State, No. 82A01-1306-CR-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 11, 2014).

March 13, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

When “basic questions” asked by police in “pre-interview” did not result in a confession, there was no violation of Missouri v. Seibert’s rule that police cannot purposefully withhold Miranda warnings to get a confession and then secure a Miranda waiver, based on the first confession, before questioning to get a second confession.

Hitchens v. Collection Specialists, Inc., No. 48A05-1306-SC-302, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 11, 2014).

March 13, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

The small claims court did not deny defendant’s due process when it admitted a letter containing hearsay into evidence, and based its decision on that letter.

Wysocki v. Johnson, No. 45A03-1309-CT-385, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 3, 2014)

March 6, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

The Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act is not applicable to the common-law tort of fraud.

Harper v. State, No. 49A04-1305-CR-222, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2014).

February 28, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Officer who lies to gain entrance to a home, without exigent circumstances and after consensual entry was denied, is not acting within the course of official duties so as to justify the arrest of the home owner for resisting arrest.

Cunningham v. State, No. 19A05-1310-CR-489, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2014).

February 28, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, M. Barnes

When circumstances did not support a pat-down of stopped motorist, officer’s statement he would pat-down the motorist if the motorist chose to get out of the car was an ultimatum rather than a choice to which the motorist could consent.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 262
  • Go to page 263
  • Go to page 264
  • Go to page 265
  • Go to page 266
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 404
  • 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