• 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

Chapman v. State, No. 21A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 23, 2022).

March 28, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias, R. Shepard

Ind. Code § 35-49-2-2(1)(matter or performance harmful to minors) does not require explicit depiction of the acts or condition, but it allows for the acts and/or condition to be described or represented in any form. A judge’s preliminary determination of obscenity, or that material is probably harmful to minors under Ind. Code § 35-49-2-4, is not evidence on which the parties can rely at trial or relay to the jury, and the jury should not be made aware of the trial court’s preliminary decision.

Ceres Solutions Coop., Inc. v. Estate of Bradley, No. 21A-CT-377, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2022).

January 18, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

For the bystander rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress, explosion and subsequent fire are not separate injury-producing events for purposes of the temporal factor. Also, the plaintiff did not need to see the body of his wife being removed from the exploded house when he possessed a reasonable degree of certainty that she had been in the house at the time of the explosion.

Brown v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2021).

June 28, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Administrative punishment rendered by the Department of Correction does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.

Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Finnerty, No. 20A-CT-1069, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2021).

May 11, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, M. Robb

Motion to certify interlocutory appeal was deemed denied when the trial court did not rule on it within thirty days of filing; the trial court could not revive the motion by belatedly granting it. Repetitive motion was a motion to reconsider and also was untimely.

Madden v. State, 20A-CR-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).

January 19, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • 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