• 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

Hutchison v. Trilogy Health Services, LLC, No. 30A01-1307-SC-316, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2014).

January 30, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

When the daughter agreed “to pay the facility the full amount of the resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses,” in an agreement with a nursing home for her mother, and there was no evidence presented that daughter ever had access to or control of mother’s income or resources from which to make payment to the nursing home, the daughter was not liable for the nursing home costs.

Aslinger v. State, No. 35A02-1303-CR-296, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2014).

January 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Riley

Terry stop was improperly extended with a search for evidence. Instruction on methamphetamine manufacturing defense of being “briefly in” 1,000 feet of a park was properly rejected because the defendant was charged with dealing, not manufacturing, even though the charged was “grounded in manufacturing.”

State v. Banks, No. 49A02-1303-CR-235, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2014).

January 23, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Affirms trial court’s suppression of confession on the basis it was not voluntary.

A.N. v. K.G., No. 49A04-1212-PO-649__ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 21, 2014).

January 23, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Riley

The trial court did not improperly act as an advocate in protective order proceedings.

Gaines v. State, No. 49A04-1303-CR-123, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2013).

January 2, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Return of service for an ex parte protective order was not “testimonial” so that its admission as evidence did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 267
  • Go to page 268
  • Go to page 269
  • Go to page 270
  • Go to page 271
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 406
  • 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