• 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

I.G. v. State, No. 21A-JV-479, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2021).

September 13, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

The odor of marijuana, by itself, is not enough to establish probable cause to arrest the occupants of a vehicle.

State v. Barnett, No. 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2021).

August 30, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving preclusive effect to the Marion County Probate Court’s 2012 age-change order and the March 7, 2017, order reaffirming same, thus preventing the State from relitigating the alleged victim’s age; and the trial court did not err in dismissing multiple counts against the defendants because the charges were filed outside of the five-year statute of limitations period.

Denman v. St. Vincent Medical Group, Inc., No. 20A-PL-1236, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2021).

August 23, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

The Supreme Court’s emergency orders, issued because of COVID, did not toll the accrual of post-judgment interest.

Johnson v. Harris, No. 20A-CT-2384, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 23, 2021).

August 23, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissmann

The Child Wrongful Death Statute (CWDS) does not authorize a personal representative to file a wrongful death claim for a child when a claim was never filed by the deceased parent. The legislative intent of the CWDS was to give parents the exclusive right to file a wrongful death action, except where both parents lacked custody of the child at the time of the child’s death.

Stott v. State, 20A-CR-1924, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2021).

August 16, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

To establish admissibility based on the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, witnesses’ statements to police officers in a recording must demonstrate, among other things, contemporaneity between the events perceived and the declarations about those events. Moreover, it is the proponent’s burden to establish the strong showing of authenticity and competency for the admissibility of photographs used as substantive evidence under the silent-witness theory.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 60
  • Go to page 61
  • Go to page 62
  • Go to page 63
  • Go to page 64
  • 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