• 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

Woodson v. State, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).

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

Officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop merely because individual stopped was in a drug “hot-zone.”

Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).

January 13, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 314
  • Page 315
  • Page 316
  • Page 317
  • Page 318
  • 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