• 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

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.

Payday Today, Inc. v. Defreeuw, No. 71A05-0804-CV-253, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 9, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, B. Barteau

Because payday loan company did not unambiguously include interest in its agreement with the borrower, it cannot recover interest from that borrower.

Hay v. Baumgartner, No. 43A03-0810-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 9, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Defendants’ stipulation to the entry of a preliminary injunction prevents them from now arguing that it was wrongfully in place, and thereby precludes their recovery of attorney’s fees for its entry.

Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. May

[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.

Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-795, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

When the defendant agreed to go to the station for questioning about another matter, he had already received his ticket for driving without his seatbelt, so the subsequent search of his person made for the safety of the officer who would drive him to the station did not violate the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. But because defendant had not agreed to be driven to the station by the police for the questioning, the search of his person was unreasonable under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

  • « 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 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