• 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

Kocielko v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-218, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Defendant convicted of both deviate sexual conduct and fondling has the fondling conviction reversed, under the rule that multiple convictions cannot be imposed for the “same injurious consequences sustained by the same victim during a single confrontation.”

New v. Personal Representative for the Estate of New, No. 71A04-0912-CV-744, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Estate beneficiaries were not entitled to notice when the personal representative’s amended final accounting, changed as ordered by the court after notice and a hearing, was filed and approved by the court.

Blanford v. Blanford, No. 65A01-1004-DR-181, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Use of separate child support worksheets, one for each child, to adjust for the different number of overnights each child would have with the noncustodial parent, erroneously inflated the parent’s support obligation under the Guidelines.

Wilkins v. State, No. 02A03-0910-CR-451, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)

July 30, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Barnes

When factors which would justify a “no-knock” residential search were not “exigent,” but rather were known when the search warrant was applied for but not presented to the judge to have judicial authority for a “no-knock” entry, and the policy of the law enforcement agency was to routinely leave the “no-knock” decision to the police team rather than obtaining approval from an independent authority, suppression of the fruits of the “no-knock” search was appropriate under the Indiana Constitution.

Starr v. State, No. 49A04-0912-CR-677, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2010)

June 29, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Passenger for whom there is no reasonable suspicion of a law violation does not commit “refusal to identify self” C misdemeanor if he refuses to identify himself.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • 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