• 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

Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Jarrells, No. 29A02-0807-CV-669, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden, N. Vaidik, P. Riley

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Jarrells (Ind. Ct. App., Darden, J.) – Although (or because) trial court instructed the jury that, in determining its verdict, it must consider evidence of worker’s compensation payments, employer’s insurance carrier is entitled to reimbursement from the judgment for the worker’s compensation it paid on the injured employee’s behalf.

Metro Health Professionals, Inc. v. Chrysler, LLC, No. 06A04-0809-CV-547, __ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2009)

May 8, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Auto purchaser was entitled to “Lemon Law” relief after seller’s fourth unsuccessful repair attempt even though a fifth repair attempt apparently succeeded after the “Lemon Law” was invoked.

Upton v. State, No. 52A02-0812-CR-1112, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Application of “credit restricted felon” statute to offense committed before statute’s effective date violated ex post facto prohibition.

Moore v. Moore, No. 49A02-0810-CV-978, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 16, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Protective order prohibiting only threats or violence but permitting contact erroneously did not address petitioner’s concerns with harassment or provide relief necessary to prevent violence or threats of violence as required by statute.

Hayworth v. State, No. 07A01-0804-CR-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Continuing objection procedure requires counsel to remain silent during the subsequent admission of the class of evidence subject to the objection. Search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause due to insufficient corroboration of informant’s statements. Affiant detective’s misleading statements amounted to deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct which “good faith” doctrine would not excuse to save the search.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 388
  • Go to page 389
  • Go to page 390
  • Go to page 391
  • Go to page 392
  • 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