• 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

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.

Horner v. Carter, No. 34A02-1111-DR-1029, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 13, 2012).

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

“Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 allow the introduction of mediation communications to establish traditional contract defenses.”

Ervin v. State, No. 29A05-1109-CR-454, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012

May 31, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Trial court properly concluded that evidence should not be suppressed as Ind. Code § 9-30-2-2 was not implicated. The statute provides that an officer may not arrest a person “for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on an Indiana highway” unless the officer is in uniform or a marked police vehicle, but defendant was not arrested for violating a law regulating the use of a motor vehicle.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 305
  • Page 306
  • Page 307
  • Page 308
  • Page 309
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 408
  • 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