• 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

Oatts v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-447, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

The “sexual innocence inference” is that a young victim’s ability to describe the charged sexual molestation is proof that the molestation occurred; adopts the “compromise position” which admits an unrelated prior instance of sexual experience for the victim if the defendant shows that the prior sexual act occurred and that the prior sexual act was sufficiently similar to the charged sexual act to give the victim the knowledge to imagine the charged conduct.

Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik, T. Crone

In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.

Redmond v. State, No. 49A02-0808-CR-761, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 28, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

365 day period in which to file a petition to modify sentence without prosecutor’s consent begins to run when sentence is imposed, even when sentence sought to be modified runs consecutive to another.

Ramirez v. Wilson, No. 56A04-0806-CV-356, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 29, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Riley

Viable fetus was not a child for the purposes of the Child Wrongful Death statute.

Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, No. 69A01-0807-CV-358, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Barnes, P. Mathias

Because plaintiff did not timely file the agency record or seek an additional extension of time in which to do so, its petition for judifical review of a final agency action was “subject to dismissal” under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act; the trial court, however, had discretion to find that a petition “subject to dismissal” should not, upon a proper showing, be dismissed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 395
  • Go to page 396
  • Go to page 397
  • Go to page 398
  • Go to page 399
  • 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