• 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

Hawkins v. State, No. 79A02-1101-CR-100, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 18, 2011).

July 22, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, T. Crone

Sentence modification statute’s 365 day period in which judge may modify without prosecutor agreement starts when original sentence is imposed and is not “reset” with a resentencing.

Price v. Kuchaes, No. 45A04-1007-CT-467, ___ N.E.2d___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2011)

June 10, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Plaintiff was divested of standing to pursue his action while his bankruptcy was pending, but the bankruptcy’s dismissal before the trial court ruled on either party’s motion for summary judgment returned ownership of the action to him and plaintiff then had standing to pursue the action.

Ball v. State, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

“Sleep is not equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, and therefore, the State’s evidence that Ball’s victim was sleeping when he began kissing her is insufficient to support his conviction for sexual battery.”

Sneed v. State, No. 16A01-1010-CR-544, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2011)

April 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Limiting bail to full cash deposit only, when trial court did not articulate any reasons for not allowing the surety bond defendant requested, and when record did not indicate defendant was a flight risk, was an abuse of discretion.

Smith v. State, No. 35A02-1008-CR-996, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 23, 2011)

March 25, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

To revoke probation for failure to comply with the condition to pay child support, the State has burden to prove by a preponderance 1) less than full payment, and 2) the less than full payment was made recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally, which requires the State to prove the probationer’s ability to pay.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • 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