• 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

Williams v. State, No. 49A02-1103-CR-266, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 11, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Statutory confidentiality for Board of Pharmacy prescription database protects prescription subject’s physician-patient and pharmacist-patient privileges, and subject’s criminal defense discovery request for prescription records waived these privileges’ protection, so that Board’s objections to disclosure based on confidentiality were without merit.

Estate of Latek, No. 64A05-1103-ES-112, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2012).

January 5, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

“[T]he effect of another state’s determination that a will is invalid has no effect on the validity of the will in Indiana as it pertains to the disposition of real property located in Indiana.”

Heaton v. State, No. 48A02-1104-CR-404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2011).

December 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

In a probation revocation, the trial court must apply the preponderance standard in determining whether a new offense was committed; points out that a line of Court of Appeals decisions saying probable cause is the standard failed to note the 1983 statutory change requiring preponderance.

Bryant v. State, No. 45A03-1101-CR-11, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2011).

December 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Suspect, arrested driving his car for resisting arrest after he failed to stop the car earlier, was properly strip-searched at the arrest site for drugs when officers had reasonable suspicion he was concealing contraband on his person.

McCloud v. State, No. 49A05-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 20, 2011).

December 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Neither the Interstate Agreement on Detainers nor the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum procedures applied to defendant while he was in federal custody for ten months; Criminal Rule 4 consequently was applicable, and the time the defendant was in federal custody was attributable to the defendant under the Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year rule.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 307
  • Go to page 308
  • Go to page 309
  • Go to page 310
  • Go to page 311
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 400
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs