• 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

Eppl v. DiGiacomo, No. 45A03-1007-SC-402, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2011)

May 6, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Tenant’s mere delivery of the keys is not sufficient to demonstrate that landlord accepted surrender of the premises; thus the end of the month, in a month-to-month tenancy, started the security deposit statute’s 45-day clock for the landlord to provide the itemization of charges against the security deposit.

Ball v. State, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

“Sleep is not equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, and therefore, the State’s evidence that Ball’s victim was sleeping when he began kissing her is insufficient to support his conviction for sexual battery.”

Sneed v. State, No. 16A01-1010-CR-544, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Limiting bail to full cash deposit only, when trial court did not articulate any reasons for not allowing the surety bond defendant requested, and when record did not indicate defendant was a flight risk, was an abuse of discretion.

Brown v. State, No. 49A02-1008-CR-905, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 27, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The 2010 amendment providing credit time for persons on electronic home monitoring as a direct commitment to community corrections does not apply retroactively.

Beeler v. State, No. 49A05-1007-CR-456, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 27, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, T. Crone

The transcript contained no admissions by the probationer of the alleged probation violation, and without such admissions the revocation without a hearing would be fundamental error, but as there was a notation in the CCS that an admission was made and this notation was presumptively true, the probationer failed to demonstrate fundamental error.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 327
  • Go to page 328
  • Go to page 329
  • Go to page 330
  • Go to page 331
  • 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