• 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. Massa

Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).

June 7, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, M. Massa, Supreme

The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.

City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals v. UJ-Eighty Corp., No. 21S-PL-77, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2021).

March 1, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

City did not delegate zoning authority to university, but defined fraternities and sororities in zoning law based on their relationship with the university.

Johnson v. State, 20S-CR-655, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 1, 2020).

December 7, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, M. Massa, Supreme

Evidence of drug involvement, and whether the suspect and officer are in a confined space, are both part of the totality of the circumstances contributing to an officer’s reasonable belief that a subject is armed and dangerous as to permit a Terry frisk.

Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).

July 13, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, M. Massa, S. David, Supreme

When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.

McCain v. State, No. 20S-CR-281, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2020).

July 6, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Trial court’s comments disagreeing with the jury’s verdict were insufficient to taint the sentencing decision, and the sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the crime and defendant’s demonstrated character

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 27
  • 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