• 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. May

G.N. v. IDCS (In re T.N.), No. 49A05-1101-JC-15, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

One parent’s admission is insufficient to prove a child is a CHINS when the child’s other parent contests that allegation; due process requires a fact-finding hearing before the court declares the child is a CHINS.

K.S. v. B.W., No. 22A05-1102-DR-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Ind. Code 31-9-2-35.5, defining a de facto custodian, applies only to custody proceedings after a paternity determination, actions for child custody or modification of custody, and temporary placement of a child in need of services taken into custody; it does not apply in the case of visitation rights of a boyfriend over an ex-girlfriend’s child.

Cynthia Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al., No. 79A02-1012-CT-1407, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2011).

August 5, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The Pfenning standard is applicable in the case of a mother hit in the knee by a youth baseball team member warming up, and to apply the Pfenning standard the Court must examine the actions of the alleged tortfeasor to determine if “the conduct of [the] participant” is within the “range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport.”

Randolph v. Buss, No. 33A04-1010-MI-684, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Legislature intended that inmate’s left-over educational credit time after his release on parole would not still be available to him when his parole was revoked and he returned to prison.

Lock v. State, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. May

Evidence defendant’s motorcycle was going 43 miles per hour did not prove its “maximum design speed” was 25 miles per hour or more, a “design speed” the State had to prove in order to show defendant was operating a “motor vehicle” rather than a “motorized bicycle” so that defendant was guilty of driving while suspended.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • Go to page 29
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 34
  • 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