• 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

Nasser v. St. Vincents Hospital and Health Services, No. 49A02-0910-CV-955, __ N.E.2d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 20010)

April 20, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Medical causation opinion of nurse serving on medical review panel was not admissible as expert opinion under Evidence Rule 702 and thus could not be used in resolving summary judgment motion.

Julie C. v. Andrew C., No. 49A05-0909-CV-523, __N.E.2D__ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 30, 2010)

April 1, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Change in visitation to seven nights every two weeks was a de facto change of custody subject to the statutes on custody modification. When considering changing a decree for joint legal custody, the court must consider the joint legal custody factors in IC 31-17-2-15 in addition to the standard factors in IC 31-17-2-8.

Runyon v. State, No. 57A04-0910-CR-575, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 11, 2010)

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

When a person convicted of nonsupport of a dependent must pay support as a condition of probation, he has the burden to prove he was unable to pay at a revocation for having failed to make the support payments.

Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Good, No. 85A04-0902-CV-89, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2009)

January 11, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

If a trial court finds that an attorney or party caused a mistrial by egregiously violating an order in limine, the trial court has the inherent power to sanction him or her.

Lainhart v. State, No. 24A01-0904-CR-184, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2009

December 4, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Testifying defendant may be impeached with his failure to explain his innocence to the police after he is charged but prior to his receiving Miranda warnings, under the Miranda-based Doyle v. Ohio decisions; Indiana’s law does not offer more protection than the federal Doyle cases.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 40
  • Go to page 41
  • Go to page 42
  • Go to page 43
  • Go to page 44
  • 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