• 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

M. Bailey

In re Paternity of J.W., No. 76A04-1610-JP-2476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2017).

July 10, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

Trial court infringed upon the custodial rights of parent by delegating decision-making as to child’s need for therapy to a service provider.

Jones v. State, No. 49A02-1611-CR-2513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2017).

June 12, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, N. Vaidik

When defendant is convicted after a trial to the court, the right to waive allocution is personal to the defendant and may not be waived by counsel.

Jenner v. Bloomington Cellular Services, Inc., No. 53A05-1606-MI-1415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2017).

June 12, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

Tax sale purchasers must provide notice to any person with a substantial, publicly recorded interest even if their interest lies outside the chain of title. “Requiring a tax-sale purchaser to search outside the chain of title—even if it means searching thousands of records in the county recorder’s office—is one of the safeguards created by the statute.”

B&R Oil Co., Inc. v. Stoler, No. 71A04-1603-PL-608, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, M. Bailey

Lessor may not circumvent a lessee’s contractual right of first refusal to purchase the leased premises by submitting a third-party offer to the lessee in which the leased premises are bundled with other property.

Gonzalez v. State, No. 33A04-1612-MI-2807, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2017).

May 23, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Forfeiture order was reversed when the trial court inferred from defendant’s presence in the vehicle that he was a co-conspirator with the other passengers for dealing in narcotics when there was no additional evidence of a nexus between defendant’s forfeited money and dealing in narcotics.

  • « 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 25
  • 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