• 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

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.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 392
  • Go to page 393
  • Go to page 394
  • Go to page 395
  • Go to page 396
  • 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