• 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. Darden

Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Jarrells, No. 29A02-0807-CV-669, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden, N. Vaidik, P. Riley

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Jarrells (Ind. Ct. App., Darden, J.) – Although (or because) trial court instructed the jury that, in determining its verdict, it must consider evidence of worker’s compensation payments, employer’s insurance carrier is entitled to reimbursement from the judgment for the worker’s compensation it paid on the injured employee’s behalf.

Gilliam v. State, No. 71A03-0808-CR-420, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2009)

February 27, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Failure to support children in three separate households was not a single episode of criminal conduct for purposes of consecutive sentencing.

House v. State, No. 48A02-0806-CR-537, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2009)

February 27, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

A defendant imprisoned due to violating the terms and conditions of a drug court is entitled to credit time, but the credit time for any period of sanction imposed by the drug court may be waived by the defendant’s drug court agreement.

Kuhn v. State, No. 18A05-0805-PC-257, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2009)

February 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

When pro se post-conviction relief petition raised issues of fact about effective assistance of counsel, the trial court erred when it did not arrange for the petitioner’s participation in the hearing on the issues.

Smyth v. Hester, No. 29A02-0803-CV-237, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2009)

February 13, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Trial court’s order for attorney fees was remanded for further consideration and explanation, because it did not provide any insight as to the reason for the award of attorney fees, i.e., what the trial court found to be frivolous, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • 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