• 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

McKnight v. State, No. 20A03-1109-CR-454, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2013).

January 2, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

In a footnote, presumes Indiana Supreme Court “has extended application of the prison mailbox rule to the filing of motions to correct error and to regular mail.”

Wood v. State, No. 53A05-1208-CR-423 , __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2013).

January 2, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, M. May

Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one year period did not include the time required for the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a special judge following withdrawal of a case from the trial judge pursuant to Criminal Rule 15 and Trial Rule 53.1. Affirms conviction for violating IC 14-15-4-1 on duties of a boat operator after a collision, but observes the “problematic” statute “permits no consideration of what is reasonable in any given emergency situation; nor does it permit citizens to engage in any balancing of considerations that arise in typical emergencies and are likely required by other statutes.”

Davis v. Summers, No, 53A01-1305-DR-22, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2013).

December 31, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Indiana law does not automatically void a marriage if one of the parties later is legally recognized as the same gender as the spouse.

Weinberger v. Barnes, No. 45A04-1107-CT-369, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2013).

December 20, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Ind. Code § 34-51-3-6, the punitive damages statute, does not give the state power to intervene in otherwise private litigation, at any stage in the proceedings.

Carpenter v. State, No. 77A01-1306-CR-293, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6 ,2013).

December 12, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Evidence for revocation of probation was insufficient when it did not provide any basis to conclude phenobarbital was taken after period of probation had begun.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 266
  • Go to page 267
  • Go to page 268
  • Go to page 269
  • Go to page 270
  • 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