• 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

Brindle v. Arata, No. 02A05-1004-SC-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Student loan funds, exempt from garnishment under federal statute, retain their exempt status after deposit in the student’s bank account.

Holmes v. Celadon Trucking Servs. of Ind., Inc., No. 49A02-1007-PL-714, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

An action commences when the initiating party files the original and necessary copies of the complaint, the prescribed filing fee, and the original and necessary copies of the summons. Delayed filing of an appearance has no impact on the commencement of the action for statute of limitations purposes.

Thomas v. State, No. 49A02-1002-CR-105, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Brown

Vacates invasion of privacy conviction for protection order subject’s “stop calling me, fagot [sic]” remark to protected person during a court hearing, on basis direct contempt was “more appropriate” remedy.

State v. Renzulli, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, P. Mathias, P. Riley

One of three separate opinions in plurality decision would hold State had to corroborate citizen tip with testimony that officers saw no other vehicles besides defendant’s which matched the tipster’s description.

Wilson v. State, No. 49A02-1001-CR-60, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

(1) Because State’s request to amend the charging information the day before trial was made under the amended version of Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5, Defendant’s failure to request a continuance to prepare his defense resulted in a waiver of the issue for appellate review; (2) although trial court should have redacted unrelated character evidence from Defendant’s BMV record, Defendant failed to prove that the admission of the evidence made a fair trial impossible.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs