• 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

J. Kirsch

Eads v. Community Hospital, No. 45A03-0807-CV-350, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 23, 2009)

July 29, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, J. Kirsch

Where plaintiff sued under premises liability for injuries incurred in hospital, but did not appeal trial court’s dismissal of her complaint, the Journey’s Account Statute did not apply to her subsequent medical malpractice lawsuit.

Brown v. State, No. 34A05-0812-CR-716, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2009)

June 16, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, J. Baker, J. Kirsch

Plurality agrees defendant receives no sentence credit for period he was arrested on charges unrelated to the one he pled guilty to and which were dismissed; plurality agrees defendant receives credit from time he was arrested on charge he pled guilty to.

Chacon v. Jones-Schilds, No. 02A05-0808-CV-484, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 8, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proposed evidence of the lack of a recording of an incident at a jail (and the corresponding negative inference therefrom), because the proponent of the evidence failed to comply with the court’s discovery and pretrial orders.

State v. Brown, No. 38A05-0810-CR-573, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2009)

February 13, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: J. Kirsch, Supreme

After officers had completed their response to a complaint about a noisy party and were leaving the site, their demand to see the license of a motorist who was arriving at the party was an unreasonable search under the Indiana Constitution.

Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik, T. Crone

In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15

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