• 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

Gonzalez v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-406, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Gonzalez v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.)-When trial judge took plea agreement under advisement to allow the school which owned the bus defendant hit to decide whether to object, defendant’s letter to the school apologizing was a plea negotiation statement privileged under Evidence Rule 410 and its admission in evidence was reversible error.

Washington Twp. Fire Dep't v. Beltway Surgery Ctr., No. 93A02-0811-EX-1006, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

The employer of an injured employee bears the burden of proving that a medical service provider’s bill exceeds the Worker’s Compensation 80th percentile standard.

Smith v. Wrigley, No. 33A05-0903-CV-156, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 25, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Because inmate’s claims were neither legally nor factually frivolous, trial court erred in dismissing his complaint under the Frivolous Claim Law.

Mathews v. State, No. 01A02-0901-CR-44, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

When probationer in open court was informed of date for revocation fact-finding hearing, and would have learned of the rescheduling of the hearing had she appeared on the original date scheduled, she could be tried in absentia when she did not appear at the rescheduled hearing.

Davis v. State, No. 45A03-0808-CR-407, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2009)

June 16, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Search based on a warrant based in part on information obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment was upheld when the remaining information for the warrant was not illegally obtained and sufficed to show probable cause.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 389
  • Go to page 390
  • Go to page 391
  • Go to page 392
  • Go to page 393
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 403
  • 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