• 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

E. Brown

Abney v. State, No. 34A02-1608-CR-1746, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2017).

June 26, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

A judge is not required to recuse because an attorney in the case is involved in the judge’s judicial campaign unless an objective person, knowledgeable of all the circumstances, would have a rational basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.

Watkins v. State, No. 82A01-1510-CR-1624, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2017).

January 9, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, M. May

Under the totality of the circumstances, the extent of law enforcement’s need for a “military-style assault” was low and the degree of intrusion was unreasonably high; the search violated defendant’s right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure.

Polet v. ESG Security, Inc., No. 49A02-1510-CT-1631, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2016).

January 3, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Where foreseeability is an element of duty, the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law; stage collapse due to high wind is not foreseeable as a matter of law.

Yeager v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 22A04-1604-MF-727, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2016).

December 12, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Mathias

In a mortgage foreclosure, a trial court must hold a hearing or to otherwise obtain information to determine the amount of the defendant’s provisional monthly payment.

Johnson v. State, No. 28A05-1602-CR-309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2016).

October 31, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

rial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s violation warranted serving the entirety of the remaining portion of his executed sentence in the DOC due to the level of his limited functioning and financial resources, his previous successful placement on work release, the nature of the violation, and the severity of the court’s sentence.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 26
  • 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