• 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

C. Bradford

Wilson v. State, No. 45A03-1409-CR-317, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2015).

May 1, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

When the defendant struggled with the bailiffs after using profanity and disrupting the trial, the defendant waived his right to be present and the trial court did not err by removing him from the courtroom without first having warned him such conduct would result in removal.

Jackson v. State, No. 34A01-1409-CR-455, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2015).

April 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Najam

Probation condition to report within forty-eight hours an arrest or charge for a “new criminal offense” was ambiguous as to whether it applied to an arrest or charge for an offense committed before the probationary period began; holds the ambiguity must be construed against the State, so that the reporting condition did not include arrests or charges for offenses committed before probation began.

Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Fair, No. 18A02-1405-CT-316, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 2, 2015).

March 5, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Based on the principles of notice pleading, Plaintiff can pursue negligence claims against the hospital’s pharmacist despite not making the claim to the medical review panel.

Orange v. Morris, No. 45A03-1310-PL-414, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2014).

December 18, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

City court judge properly filed a complaint in mandamus in Circuit Court instead of issuing a mandate order under T.R. 60.5.

Williams v. State, No. 34A02-1406-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2014).

December 11, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

When auto’s tail light had a hole in it such that the white light from the hole was “overwhelming,” as long as there was some red light plainly visible at 500 feet there was no violation of the tail lamp statute and the stop predicated on a tail lamp violation was illegal.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 27
  • 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