• 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

Putnam Co. Sheriff v. Price, No. 49A02-1009-DR-105, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2011).

October 6, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

County Sheriff Department “that neither owns, maintains, nor controls a county road” does not have a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions of that road.

Turner v. State, No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Indiana Rule of Evidence 702(b) permitted admission of “tool mark” expert’s “identification” opinion that marks on unfired cartridge found in defendant’s girlfriend’s home matched marks on fired cartridge casings found at murder scene, even though the firearm which might have made the “tool marks” was never found.

Citizens State Bank of New Castle V. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 76S03-1009-CV-515, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 29, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Strict foreclosure is a mechanism to place before the court the question of whether the doctrine of merger should be enforced, but “’[w]hether the conveyance of the fee to the mortgagee results in a merger of the mortgage and the fee depends primarily upon the intention of the parties, particularly that of the mortgagee.’”

Baker v. State, No. 17S04-1009-CR-500, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

When, as in this child molesting case, “evidence is presented of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than the defendant is charged with,” “the State may in its discretion designate a specific act (or acts) on which it relies to prove a particular charge,” but “if the State decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged.”

Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 12, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Affirms trial court refusal to instruct on right to resist illegal police entry of home, as “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • 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