• 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

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.”

Mork v. State, No. 49A02-0901-CR-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)

September 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Defendant was no longer entitled to Criminal Rule 4(B) trial within 70 days when court released him on his own recognizance, while he was imprisoned in Department of Corrections serving a sentence on an unrelated offense.

Gerber v. State, No. 02A03-0902-CR-73, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)

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

Gerber v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.) – Expungement statute does not require petitioner to wait until limitations period for dismissed charge has run, and trial judge erred in summarily dismissing expungement petition on that basis; on remand, prosecutor is not authorized to participate due to failure to have filed a notice of opposition.

Shivley v. State, No. 12A02-0903-CR-235, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2009)

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

In determining indigency for the purpose of court-appointed counsel, trial courts should consider defendant’s actual income as of the time of the hearings and his fixed monetary obligations, including his obligations to his family.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 379
  • Go to page 380
  • Go to page 381
  • Go to page 382
  • Go to page 383
  • 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