• 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

Carter v. Grace Whitney Properties, No. 82A04-1003-SC-177, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

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

Local rules authorizing contempt to enforce “personal order of garnishment,” an order to debtor to pay a money judgment in installments, violates Indiana Constitution; “personal orders of garnishment” may be used to compel debtor to apply property creditor shows is not exempt from execution; creditor may not use successive proceedings supplemental without showing new facts giving rise to belief the judgment debtor has property or income to satisfy the judgment.

LaPorte Community School Corp. v. Rosales, No. 46A04-1001-CT-4, __ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, T. Crone

Negligence instruction on factual propositions plaintiff had to prove reversibly suggested defendant could be negligent without breaching duty of reasonable care, notwithstanding another instruction on the reasonable care element.

Kennedy v. State, No. 89A04-0907-CR-380, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Defense attack on technical details of DNA testing went to the weight, not admissibility, of DNA identification evidence.

Girdler v. State, No. 73A01-1001-CR-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2010)

September 3, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Concludes, contrary to other Court of Appeals cases, that a defendant may be convicted of auto theft even if he was not the original thief; also concludes the rule of “exclusive possession of stolen property since the time of the original theft only applies where direct evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of the property’s stolen character is lacking and such knowledge must be proven circumstantially.”

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • 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