• 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. Robb

Zamani v. State, No. 32A05-1406-CR-264, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 29, 2015).

June 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, M. Robb

Since competence to stand trial had been at issue throughout the case, defendant failed to show good cause for belated request (five days before trial) to assert an insanity defense.

Moore v. State, No. 49A05-1408-CR-398, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 22, 2015).

April 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb

Savings statute for the revised penal code did not prohibit application of the revised sentence modification statute, which does not require prosecutorial consent to a modification petition, to a petition to modify a crime committed and sentenced prior to the July 1, 2014 effective date of the modification statute’s revision.

Preferred Professional Ins. Co., v. West, No. 49A02-1403-CT-163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2014).

December 18, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, M. Robb

The Medical Malpractice Act was not intended to cover claims by third parties having absolutely no relationship to the doctor or medical provider.

Anonymous Physician v. Rogers, No. 02A03-1401-CT-1, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 7, 2014).

November 13, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, M. Robb

Doctrine of continuing wrong does not apply to doctor’s continued use of disinfectant that caused plaintiff’s allergic reaction in his medical malpractice action.

Neal v. Austin, No. 49A02-1404-DR-225__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 31, 2014).

November 6, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6 “necessitates that where the most recent order establishing a child support obligation was issued after June 30, 2012, the child must file a petition for educational needs before the child becomes nineteen years of age.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 14
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 29
  • 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