• 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

Lagrone v State, No. 49A05-1203-CR-135, __ U.S. __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 26, 2013).

March 27, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Police placement of a GPS device in a package opened by UPS did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but police use of a “parcel wire” to monitor the opening of the package once defendant had taken it into his home was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment; police could not enter the home without a warrant under the “exigent circumstances” exception because the exigent circumstances – the wire’s alert that the package was opening – were the result of their Fourth Amendment violation.

State v. I.T., No. 20A03-1202-JV-76, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 20, 2013).

March 22, 2013 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

“[T]he State is without authority to appeal a juvenile court’s order withdrawing its approval of the filing of a delinquency petition.”

Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, No. 45A03-1207-PL-316,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 21, 2013).

March 21, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.

K.O.A. Properties, LLC v. Matheison, No. 48A04-1207-SC-365,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Small claims court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though it was not listed as a separate party defendant on the notice of claim and defendant was not separately served with the notice, because it was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform defendant that a small claims action had been instituted against it.

Zavodnik v. Richards, No. 49A02-1209-CC-750, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When a trial court has involuntarily dismissed a case without prejudice pursuant to T. R. 41(E), T.R. 41(F) gives dismissing trial court the discretion to consider whether a complaint should be reinstated. Plaintiff should not file a substantially similar or identical complaint in another court.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 283
  • Go to page 284
  • Go to page 285
  • Go to page 286
  • Go to page 287
  • 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