• 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

In re Adoption of N.W., No. 71A04-1002-AD-127, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2010)

September 28, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

When Mother had some income but by agreement had no support obligation, and provided the child with housing, food, and other necessities, there was a failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence Mother’s consent was not required for adoption.

Lewis v. State, No. 49A02-0908-CR-736, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2010)

July 30, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Mathias, P. Riley

Plurality opinion holds that officer’s incursions into auto passenger compartment, after driver had been arrested outside the vehicle, violated 4th Amendment and Indiana Constitution Art. I Sec. 11.

McCabe v. Commissioner, Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 49A02-0908-CV-728, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2010)

July 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias, P. Riley

Attorney fees and expenses incurred by the personal representative’s attorney are not recoverable damages under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Com'n, No. 39A01-0908-CV-408, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

(1) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for “travel, postage, and copying” costs under Trial Rule 41(E) (failure to prosecute); (2) because defendants were forced to defend against a frivolous and groundless claim, however, trial court did abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b).

Lehman v. State, No. 35A05-0909-CR-513, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2010)

April 20, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Confidential informant’s taped statements as to what occurred in controlled buy were hearsay and were inadmissible as well under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule; informant’s statements during the buy were not admitted for the truth of their content and hence were not hearsay.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • 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