• 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

R. Rucker

Speers v. State, No. 55S01-1312-CR-841, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).

December 20, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

“[A] laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence” need not “testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.”

Halliburton v. State, No. 20S00-1206-LW-560, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 19, 2013).

December 20, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Limiting instruction erroneously advised the jury that the court had ruled the evidence to be relevant and admissible because the probative value outweighed any prejudice, but the error was not fundamental.

Kitchell v. Franklin, No. 09S00-1307-PL-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2013).

November 15, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Indiana’s Public-Private Agreements statute does not require a local legislative body to first adopt the statute before it may issue a request for proposals or begin contract negotiations as provided for under the statute.

In re Dixon, No. 71S00-1104-DI-196, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2013).

October 10, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, R. Rucker, Supreme

Adopts an objective standard for determining when a statement made by an attorney about a judicial officer violates Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .”

McWhorter v. State, No. 33S01-1301-PC-7, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 12, 2013).

September 13, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Adheres to Indiana position that verdicts are not reviewable for being “inconsistent, contradictory, or irreconcilable,” and holds that collateral estoppel does not prevent defendant acquitted of murder from being retried for manslaughter in this case.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to page 14
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 23
  • 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