• 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

In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C., 73A01-1109-CR-468, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2012).

June 28, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

A prosecutor investigating a crime before charging someone without a grand jury has the same authority to grant use immunity as a prosecutor using a grand jury.

City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, No. 49A02-1108-CT-782, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2012).

June 28, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When a claimant’s tort claim notice contains a specific and definitive assessment of loss, recovery is limited to the loss described in the original notice, and if additional losses are discovered after the notice has been submitted then the claimant should amend the original notice or submit another notice in a timely manner.

Orr v. State, No. 45A03-1107-CR-308, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2012).

June 22, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Evidence Rule 613(b) confers discretion to allow a prior inconsistent statement to be admitted before the witness has a chance to explain or deny or, in some circumstances, even when witness is not given any chance to explain or deny.

Sexton v. State, No. 02A03-1110-CR-465, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2012).

June 14, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, R. Shepard

When the plea bargain called for dismissal of a felon in possession of a handgun charge, “it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider the fact that Sexton shot his victim using a handgun it was illegal for a person with five felony convictions to possess.”

Sexton v. Sexton, No. 34A02-1111-DR-01059, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2012).

June 14, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Public Law 111-2012 will modify the presumptive age for termination of child support, but it will not alter a child’s ability to obtain educational support except for amending the time frame in which certain children may seek educational support.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 302
  • Go to page 303
  • Go to page 304
  • Go to page 305
  • Go to page 306
  • 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