• 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

Smither v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 55A04-0902-CV-70, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2010)

January 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

(1) The six-year statute of limtitations on “[a]ctions on accounts and contracts not in writing,” governs credit card accounts; (2) because a credit card is akin to an open account, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the account is due; (3) whether “the date the account is due” is the date of debtor’s last payment or the next due date, the credit card company in this case filed its lawsuit more than six years after both of those dates; (4) whether a credit card company can invoke an optional acceleration clause to delay the statute of limitations, the credit card company in this case did not properly invoke such a clause, because it did not take any affirmative action to notify the debtor of its intent to do so.

Bowling v. State, No. 68A05-0906-CR-306, __ N.E.2d. __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2009)

January 11, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Interstate Agreement on Detainers 180 day trial right is not triggered until prosecutor and court in prosecution state receive prisoner’s request for trial.

Mogg v. State, No. 29A04-0902-CR-82, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2009)

January 11, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Proper showing was made for probation revocation evidence of alcohol use generated by Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (“SCRAM”) bracelet.

Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Good, No. 85A04-0902-CV-89, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2009)

January 11, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

If a trial court finds that an attorney or party caused a mistrial by egregiously violating an order in limine, the trial court has the inherent power to sanction him or her.

Outlaw v. State, No. 49A02-0904-CR-340, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2009)

December 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Evidence that defendant was intoxicated, without more, does not suffice to prove the “endangerment” element of A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 372
  • Go to page 373
  • Go to page 374
  • Go to page 375
  • Go to page 376
  • 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