• 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

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.

Lindsey v. State, No. 29A02-0902-CR-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 9, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Officer reasonably concluded that car approached by armed robbery suspect might have been suspect’s car and exigent circumstances justified officer’s opening vehicle door wider to check for accomplices inside.

  • « 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