• 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

G. Slaughter

Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20S-CT-23, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2020).

October 13, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Decedent was covered by insurance policy as a “resident relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need to notify insurance company of her status because she was not an “operator” living within their household. Additionally, the insurance policy’s anti-stacking provision did not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury.

Humphrey v. Tuck, No. 20S-CT-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 8, 2020).

September 14, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the failure-to-mitigate instruction; only a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support the giving of the instruction.

Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).

July 13, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, M. Massa, S. David, Supreme

When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.

Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

June 29, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, S. David, Supreme

Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.

Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

June 29, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 20
  • 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