• 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. Barnes

Thompson v. Gerowitz, No. 49A05-1005-CT-296, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2011)

February 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Juror’s silence during voir dire when taken with her subsequent statement to the trial court regarding possible bias required the trial court to conduct a hearing out of the presence of the remainder of the jury to determine whether the juror’s silence indicated bias or lack of disinterest, and whether the hearing itself created a bias in the juror.

Matlock v. State, No. 49A02-1006-CR-609, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 21, 2011)

January 28, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

“[W]here the possibility exists that a defendant accused of OWI may at some point in the future regain competency and be released back into society, which release also may include the defendant driving, the State may pursue an OWI conviction even if the defendant’s incompetency caused he or she to be detained for a period in excess of the maximum possible sentence for OWI.”

Hunt Construction Group, Inc., v. Garrett, No. 49A02-1001-CT-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2010)

December 17, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, M. Barnes

Construction manager’s contractual duties are interpreted to give it a duty for safety of contractor’s employees; argument manager had a “nondelegable” duty toward contractor employee is rejected.

St. Joseph Hosp.. v. Cain, No. 02A05-1006-PL-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2010)

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

Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.

Cox v. State, No. 79A04-0912-CR-741, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When child took the stand and testified he knew the difference between telling the truth and a lie and was subject to cross-examination but otherwise provided no testimony about the alleged molesting, and when there had been no testimony from mental health experts that testifying in court would traumatize the child, it was reversible error to admit videotape of child’s statement to a prosecutor’s interviewer about the alleged crimes.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • 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