• 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

Supreme

T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).

September 4, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”

Ind. Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 49S10-1402-TA-79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 25, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Company could not deduct foreign-source dividend income when calculating its net operating losses for Indiana tax purposes.

Ind. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Holcomb, No. 49S05-1404-CC-209, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 26, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act’s cap on attorney fees from a Patient Compensation Fund award does not reduce the Fund’s liability.

Gomillia v. State, No. 49S02-1408-CR-521, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 12, 2014).

August 14, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Affirms “this basic premise” – “[w]here a trial court’s reason for imposing a sentence greater than the advisory sentence includes material elements of the offense, absent something unique about the circumstances that would justify deviating from the advisory sentence, that reason is ‘improper as a matter of law.’”

Guilmette v. State, No. 71S04-1310-CR-705, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2014).

August 14, 2014 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Police do not need a separate warrant to test lawfully seized evidence which is unrelated to the crime for which the defendant is in custody.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 108
  • Go to page 109
  • Go to page 110
  • Go to page 111
  • Go to page 112
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 174
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs