• 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

In re N.E., No. 49A02-0806-JV-522, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2009)

March 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, P. Riley

Where DCS alleged Child to be a CHINS with respect to Mother, but not with respect to Father, Court of Appeals remanded the case for determination of whether Father is willing and able to appropriately parent Child.

Shotts v. State, No. 71A03-0808-CR-400, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)

March 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Good faith” exception did not save arrest on Alabama arrest warrant which was based on a completely conclusory affidavit; fact arresting Indiana officers never had seen the warrant or affidavit did not alter the result.

Barkwill v. Cornelia H. Barkwill Revocable Trust, No. 64A04-0808-CV-455, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)

March 13, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

“[A]n automatic presumption that any adult child who assists an aging parent is presumed to be in a dominant role and exert undue influence over that parent’s decisions is ill-advised.”

Ind. Division of Child Services, LaPorte County v. LaPorte County CASA, NO. 46A04-0902-JV-78, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2009)

March 13, 2009 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, Per Curiam

Periodic CHINS placement review was transformed into a modification proceeding, so that court’s modification contrary to DCS recommendation was subject to expedited appeal procedure.

Harrison v. State, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2009)

March 6, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Defense” to within-1,000-feet-of-park drug crime enhancement that defendant was “briefly” in the zone and no person under 18 was present is a mitigating factor like “sudden heat” which State must rebut if evidence puts it in issue.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 391
  • Go to page 392
  • Go to page 393
  • Go to page 394
  • Go to page 395
  • 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