• 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

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Riley

“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.

Tracy v. Morell, No. 59A01-1009-PL-488, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Sale of tractor with altered identification number was subject to rescission on grounds of mistake and public policy, and buyer was entitled to recovery of payments with interest.

Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1008-PC-508, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Defendant should have been provided with a copy of the in-court recording of Spanish interpreter’s guilty plea hearing translations for the defendant, after counsel had detected an irregularity in the translation when listening to the recording.

Nichols v. State, No. 29A04-1008-CR-589, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)

May 6, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Statute, not the trial court or the DOC, determines length of a sex offender’s sex registry obligations.

Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)

May 6, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. Barnes

Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 326
  • Go to page 327
  • Go to page 328
  • Go to page 329
  • Go to page 330
  • 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