• 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

P. Mathias

Whitely v. State, No. 49A02-1501-CR-50, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Inventory search of vehicle was not unreasonable despite officers’ significant deviation from written department policy for such searches; breach of policy, without more, did not show that the inventory was pretext for an investigatory search.

Wartell v. Lee, No. 02A03-1503-PL-81, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2015).

December 7, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

An allegedly defamatory statement related to a person’s trade, profession, office, or occupation is not defamatory per se, but the statement must impute a serious level of misconduct in a way that does not require reference to extrinsic facts for context.

Carmer v. Carmer, No. 49A05-1411-DR-539, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias

The trial court erred when it failed to consider structured settlement payments in its calculation of gross income for the purposes of child support.

Henderson v. State, No. 34A02-1501-CR-33, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).

October 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

There is no statutory, constitutional, or common law restriction on court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. However, court must conduct indigency hearing before imposing a fine.

Hale v. State, No. 35A02-1501-CR-57, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).

October 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Mathias

Denial of motion to depose codefendants, though error, was not properly preserved for appeal; when codefendants testified at trial, defendant did not seek to exclude their testimony, renew his request to depose them, or seek a continuance.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 15
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 29
  • 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