• 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

M & M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., No. 03A04-1112-CC-639, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 16, 2012).

July 19, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

“We therefore conclude that the Indiana pre-tax sale notice statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not require the government to provide sufficient notice prior to the tax sale either by mail or by personal service to mortgagees who have publicly recorded mortgages, even if such notice is not requested by the mortgagees, and because it provides that, even if the government fails to mail the requested notice or the notice is undeliverable for some reason, the validity of the tax sale will not be affected.”

McWhorter v. State, No. 33A01-1202-PC-72, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2012).

July 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Instructions “prescribed sequential error.”

Stutz v. State, No. 49A02-1110-CR-960, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 5, 2012).

July 5, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

“[C]lass A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a BAC of at least .15 percent is not a lesser included offense of class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.”

T.B. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 79A04-1110-JT-594, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2012).

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

The Court declined to adopt a policy that prohibits the involuntary termination of parental rights for all mentally retarded parents.

Estrada v. State, No. 20A03-1110-CR-474, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2012).

June 29, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, W. Garrard

As two of Estrada’s string of five robberies were armed, and she was 16 when she committed them, they were not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court in which she was adjudicated delinquent for the other three robberies, so even assuming the successive prosecution statute applies to delinquencies the two armed robberies were not offenses which “should have been charged” in the juvenile proceeding.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 302
  • Page 303
  • Page 304
  • Page 305
  • Page 306
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 407
  • 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