• 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

Lyons v. State, No. 76A03-1112-CR-582, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2012).

October 12, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Clinical psychologist’s testimony about general characteristics common to child abuse victims was properly admitted as Evidence Rule 702(a) expert “specialized knowledge” which was based on observations of victims and accordingly was not “scientific.”

In re the Matter of G.W., No. 07A01-1201-JM-6, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 10, 2012).

October 12, 2012 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley, T. Crone

A trial court may order a parent to make a child available for an interview requested by DCS to assess that child’s “condition” pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-33-8-7, where the child’s older sibling has made and then recanted allegations of sexual abuse against a family member who lives in the children’s home.

West v. State, No. 11A01-1203-CR-123, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 1, 2012).

October 5, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Shepard

Trial court’s failure to rule within a year after hearing motion to suppress, when defense motion for continuance was made at court’s urging pending ruling on the motion, required defendant’s discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one year trial rule.

Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-1110-CT-948, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 3, 2012).

October 5, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Defendant did not commit misconduct under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) when it did not supplement prior deposition testimony of a nonparty.

Kirk v. State, No. 49A02-1110-CR-979, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 24, 2012).

October 1, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Father did not have standing to object to admission of his stepson’s police statement on the basis that the officers had not followed the juvenile waiver of rights statute before questioning the stepson. Indiana Constitution’s Art. 1, § 11 search provision was violated when police officer read text messages on defendant’s cellphone at the time the officer seized the phone in a search incident to arrest.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 294
  • Go to page 295
  • Go to page 296
  • Go to page 297
  • Go to page 298
  • 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