• 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

Moore v. State, No. 49A05-1408-CR-398, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 22, 2015).

April 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb

Savings statute for the revised penal code did not prohibit application of the revised sentence modification statute, which does not require prosecutorial consent to a modification petition, to a petition to modify a crime committed and sentenced prior to the July 1, 2014 effective date of the modification statute’s revision.

Munoz v. Woroszylo, No. 79A02-1409-CT-679, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 13, 2015).

April 16, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Although plaintiff used bad judgment filing suit in federal court in Illinois, there was no evidence it was done in bad faith and the lawsuit could proceed based on the Journey’s Account Statute.

Stone v. State, No. 34A02-1410-CR-753, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2015).

March 12, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

After the trial court had accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment of conviction, defendant’s failure to appear for a presentence investigation did not permit the court to rescind the agreement and vacate the convictions.

Wise v. State, No. 49A02-1406-CR-408, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2015).

February 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Victim’s handheld video camera video of playback of cellphone video was properly admitted under the “silent witness” theory and its admission as evidence did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights.

Bickford v. State, No. 62A01-1409-CR-389, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2015).

February 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Owner’s voluntary surrender of neglected animals precluded use of statute requiring payment to a shelter for care of impounded animals, but payment for animals’ care was properly ordered under the general restitution statute.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • 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