• 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

N. Vaidik

Miller v. Dobbs, No. 15A05-1108-CT-431, (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 13, 2012).

September 17, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik

If a proposed medical malpractice complaint is filed before the Indiana Department of Insurance without filing fees, it can be treated as unfiled until the fees are paid, or it can be treated as filed and a show cause order can be issued to the plaintiffs that they must pay the fee “in short order.”

Honeycutt v. State, No. 92A04-1203-CR-149, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 5, 2012).

September 10, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Assuming a defendant can waive the right to have additional charges dismissed under the Successive Prosecution Statute, this defendant, who pled guilty after waiving counsel and being advised additional charges might be filed, did not waive the right as he was not aware of his rights under the Statute and was not represented by counsel.

F.D. v. Ind. Dept of Family Svcs., No. 82A01-1109-CT-432, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2012).

August 31, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, T. Crone

There is no private right of action for failure to report child abuse under Ind. Code § 31-33-18-4.

Gulzar v. State, No. 20A03-1202-PC-88, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2012).

August 9, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Even assuming, had he been advised of deportation consequences, that defendant would not have pled guilty due to the “special circumstances” that deportation would have uprooted his family, the very strong evidence of his guilt made harmless counsel’s failure to advise him that his theft plea bargain would result in automatic deportation.

Mertz v. Mertz, No. 64A03-1108-DR-360, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2012).

July 26, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

A trial court best determines whether under Ind. Code 31-16-12-11 the sufficiency of a plan offered by an obligor to pay arrearage is sufficient to reinstate driving privileges.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 31
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to page 33
  • Go to page 34
  • Go to page 35
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • 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