• 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

Elrod v. Brooks, No. 10A01-0903-CV-155, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2009)

August 14, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Small claims court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence refuting defendant’s counterclaim after defendant presented his evidence.

Smith v. Wrigley, No. 33A05-0903-CV-156, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 25, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Because inmate’s claims were neither legally nor factually frivolous, trial court erred in dismissing his complaint under the Frivolous Claim Law.

McMurrar v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-868, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Admission of drug test results on testimony of sponsoring witness, the lab’s quality assurance manager, without testimony of the lab scientist who performed the test or a showing of the latter’s unavailability, violated defendant’s confrontation rights.

Salter v. State, No. 49A02-0808-CR-672, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2005)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Downloading an image to a computer is not “creating a digitized image” under the child exploitation offense; the dissemination of matter harmful to minors offense was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant’s sending an image of his genitals to a sixteen year old with whom he could legally have consensual sexual relations.

Beldon v. State, No. 43A05-0805-CR-302, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 21, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Fact that physician had a busy schedule, without a showing that she could not have rearranged the schedule or that she was subpoenaed, did not make her “unavailable” such that her videotaped deposition could be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 26
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • Go to page 29
  • 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