• 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. Riley

Oster v. State, No. 84A05-1208-CR-437, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2013).

August 16, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, P. Riley

Evidence of defendant’s possession of tools useful for theft but not used to break and enter, of the retail nature of the business premises broken into, and of the fact that the defendant had a residence he could use for shelter sufficed to prove his intent to commit theft in the premises he broke and entered.

State v. Owens, No. 49A02-1210-CR-817, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2013).

August 16, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, P. Riley

When the police had illegally detained the suspect and discovery of the cocaine on his person became inevitable due to the illegal stop, suppression of the cocaine was required even though its actual discovery occurred when the suspect fled and was reapprehended.

Redington v. State, No. 53A01-1210-CR-461, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2013).

August 9, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Brown, P. Riley

Rejects challenges based on the Indiana Constitution to the statutory procedure for retaining firearms of a “dangerous” person and concludes that evidence supported the trial court’s finding the respondent was “dangerous” so that his fifty-one firearms should be retained by the police.

Coats v. State, No. 49A02-1206-CR-526, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2013).

February 7, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, P. Riley

The better practice is to follow the statutory commitment procedures concerning competence to stand trial, but here the trial court did not err in not using those procedures where the defendant’s dementia left no hope that competency could be restored.

In re Resnover, No. 49A02-1205-MI-364, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).

December 7, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley, T. Crone

In an action for a name change, “a petitioner must submit with the petition for a name change the documents requested in I.C. § 34-28-2-2.5—including a driver’s license number or identification card number—if applicable…. [A]lthough we have decided that the language of subsection 2.5 does not carry a mandate, but rather a directory intent, the trial court is still obliged to discern the absence of a fraudulent purpose prior to granting a petitioner’s name change.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 30
  • 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