• 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

League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita, No. 49A02-0901-CV-40, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 17, 2009)

September 25, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Indiana’s Voter I.D. law violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Slone v. State, No. 57A03-0904-CR-162, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2009)

September 11, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Evidence that defendant bought two twenty-count packages of pseudoephedrine within one week during cold season was insufficient to prove defendant knowingly purchased drugs containing more than three grams of ephedrine within one week.

In re Adoption of A.S., D.S., C.S., & J.S., No. 49A02-0901-CV-60, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)

September 11, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Where parents executed consents for one person to adopt their children, then (without withdrawing the first consents) executed subsequent consents for two other people to adopt their children, neither Indiana’s adoption statutes nor public policy prohibits the subsequent consents.

Baker v. Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)

September 11, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, M. May

Where an account is established by an attorney-in-fact using entirely the funds of a principal, the attorney-in-fact is named joint owner or POD beneficiary, and the principal has no direct involvement in, or even awareness of, the creation of the account, the survivor cannot be presumed the owner of the accounts.

Peoples v. State, No. 79A02-0812-CR-1141, __ N.E.2d __ (Inc. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)

September 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Habitual offender enhancement of a drug dealing offense requires that only one prior have also been a dealing offense, as the offense being sentenced for counts as one of the “two or more unrelated dealing convictions.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 378
  • Go to page 379
  • Go to page 380
  • Go to page 381
  • Go to page 382
  • 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