• 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

Jewell v. State, No. 32A04-1003-CR-187, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to counsel were not violated when police had minor, for whom defendant was charged with assisting to get a tattoo, call the defendant and elicit statements police recorded about defendant’s prior criminal sexual conduct with the minor.

In the Matter of the Paternity of: P.R., No. 36A01-1005-JP-255, ____ N.E.2d ______ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 29, 2010)

January 7, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly took judicial notice of record in another proceeding, pursuant to Evidence Rule 201 as amended effective Jan. 2010, and permissibly did so post-hearing; the parties had the right to be heard on the notice but failed to demand it, thereby waiving the opportunity, although the better practice would have been for the trial court to have given the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking the judicial notice and issuing its order.

Town of New Chicago v. City of Lake Station, No. 45A03-1001-PL-22, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 13, 2010)

December 17, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

As laches is an equitable defense, it was not available in this contract action, but the defense of equitable estoppel did apply.

S.D. v. State, No. 49A02-1004-JV-442, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 29, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Juvenile waiver statute’s meaningful consultation requirement was not met when juvenile’s conversation with guardian was videotaped by police and juvenile and guardian knew it was being taped.

Cranston v. State, No. 29A02-1003-CR-374, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Datamaster evidence ticket is not “testimonial hearsay” under the Crawford Confrontation Clause holding.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 36
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • Go to page 39
  • Go to page 40
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 46
  • 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