• 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

Ault v. State, No. 49A04-1008-CR-492, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2011)

June 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Defendant’s testimony is not necessary for establishing self-defense, but defendant’s subjective state of mind may be inferred from the circumstances to establish self-defense.

French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)

May 27, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.

Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)

May 6, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. Barnes

Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.

Beeler v. State, No. 49A05-1007-CR-456, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 27, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, T. Crone

The transcript contained no admissions by the probationer of the alleged probation violation, and without such admissions the revocation without a hearing would be fundamental error, but as there was a notation in the CCS that an admission was made and this notation was presumptively true, the probationer failed to demonstrate fundamental error.

Devlin v. Peyton, No. 49A02-1008-DR-902, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2011)

March 25, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Dissolution court cannot sua sponte assume jurisdiction over adoption of child of the marriage when adoption is pending in another court.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 28
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs