• 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. Najam

Granger v. State, No. 18A-CR-1494, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2018).

November 13, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Marijuana grinder is not drug paraphernalia. Paraphernalia is defined as an instrument or device that is used to put or insert a controlled substance into the body and a grinder can only be used to prepare marijuana for ingestion by another means, such as by a joint, a pipe, or a bong.

Hall v. State, No. 17A-CR-3022, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 1, 2018).

August 6, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

“[W]e need not decide whether there might have been any error in the filing of the petition by the prosecuting attorney instead of the director of community corrections because we hold that any potential error was a procedural, not jurisdictional, error.”

Dotson v. Stryker Corp., No. 18A-PL-220, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2018).

August 6, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered a deposition on summary judgment when it had not reviewed or signed at the time of its designation.

Weekly v. State, No. 20A03-1712-CR-2922, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2018).

July 2, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

A habitual vehicular substance offender (HVSO) finding does not constitute a separate crime nor result in a separate sentence, but is an enhancement to an underlying felony conviction.

Henderson v. Kleinman, No. 84A01-1710-CT-2566,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2018).

June 4, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, P. Mathias

There is no statutory duty for a doctor to maintain adequate records; the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of doctor when “lack of documentation makes it impossible for the panel to decide whether the evidence supports or does not support a conclusion that the Defendant failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care in his treatment of the Plaintiff.”

  • « 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 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