• 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

Gilbert v. State, No. 49A04-1102-CR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Undercover officer’s statement that he wanted sex from prostitution suspect were not hearsay and accordingly were not subject to Confrontation Clause protection, and defendant in any event had opportunity to confront second officer when he testified as to the first’s statement.

Fratter v. Rice, No. 53A04-1101-CT-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The court properly gave the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction for responsible cause because it “closely tracks our Supreme Court’s definition of proximate cause” and although it does not contain the word “omission,” the term “conduct” includes both acts and omissions.

Goldberg v. Farno, No. 41A01-1007-MF-348, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Plain legal prejudice” is adopted as the standard for determining whether a non-settling defendant has standing to challenge a partial settlement to which it is not a party.

G.N. v. IDCS (In re T.N.), No. 49A05-1101-JC-15, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

One parent’s admission is insufficient to prove a child is a CHINS when the child’s other parent contests that allegation; due process requires a fact-finding hearing before the court declares the child is a CHINS.

K.S. v. B.W., No. 22A05-1102-DR-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Ind. Code 31-9-2-35.5, defining a de facto custodian, applies only to custody proceedings after a paternity determination, actions for child custody or modification of custody, and temporary placement of a child in need of services taken into custody; it does not apply in the case of visitation rights of a boyfriend over an ex-girlfriend’s child.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 320
  • Go to page 321
  • Go to page 322
  • Go to page 323
  • Go to page 324
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 404
  • 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