• 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

Jones v. State, No. 34A05-1101-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2011).

December 8, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Police substantially complied with statute on destruction of hazardous chemicals so that photographs and other evidence of the chemicals was properly admitted at trial.

Davis v. Shelter Ins. Companies, No. 02A05-1105-CT-256, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2011).

November 22, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Adopts the following test to determine the availability of equitable estoppel as an affirmative defense against statute of limitations in insurance actions: “The first part of the test, drawing on the national case law, is to determine whether the insurer has engaged in any of the following: (1) a promise to settle; (2) discouraging the claimant from filing suit; (3) discouraging the claimant from obtaining counsel; or (4) otherwise egregious conduct. If one of those behaviors is present, then the court will engage in the second part of the test by looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s actions. Equitable estoppel will be available to the claimant when the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s conduct have induced the claimant to delay timely action…and the claimant’s reliance on the insurer’s statements or actions was reasonable…” (Internal citations omitted.)

Gearlds v. State, No. 90A02-1105-CR-433, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 24, 2011).

October 28, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Error in statute defining A misdemeanor driving while suspended with a prior within ten years does not prevent its enforcement.

Conder v. State, No. 49A02-1012-PC-1404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Depending on the manner in which they are used (here, to kick a person to death), feet and shoes can be a statutory “deadly weapon.”

Vaughn v. State, No. 45A05-1102-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2011).

September 16, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, N. Vaidik

Mistrial was required when bailiff, at court’s direction, restrained defendant and placed a hand over defendant’s mouth as jurors were leaving the courtroom after defendant, about to testify in his own behalf, launched into a criticism of defense counsel which continued despite court’s orders to stop.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 34
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to page 36
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • 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