• 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

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.S.O., No. 64A05-1005-JT-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Riley

Failure of Child Services to provide father with notice of hearings and copies of all orders in the CHINS phase of proceedings, when Child Services knew father’s name and whereabouts, violated Due Process and required reversal of termination of father’s parental rights.

Britt v. State, No. 02A03-1004-CR-253, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Britt v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Mathias, J.)-When robbery defendant called his brother as a witness and did not attack the brother’s credibility, the brother’s prior robbery conviction was inadmissible character evidence.

Segar v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Defendant did not waive his objection to the admission of the marijuana found on his person when he earlier made no objection to officers’ “foundational” testimony that material in his pocket “resembled” and “was believed to be” marijuana.

Kocielko v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-218, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Defendant convicted of both deviate sexual conduct and fondling has the fondling conviction reversed, under the rule that multiple convictions cannot be imposed for the “same injurious consequences sustained by the same victim during a single confrontation.”

St. Joseph Hosp.. v. Cain, No. 02A05-1006-PL-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 344
  • Go to page 345
  • Go to page 346
  • Go to page 347
  • Go to page 348
  • 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