• 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

Washington v. State, No. 49S02-1212-CR-669, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2013).

November 15, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction on defense of another correctly stated the law.

Austin v. State, No. 20S03-1303-CR-158, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 15, 2013).

November 15, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

State Police search of truck following permissible sequential stops for traffic violations complied with Indiana Constitution protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Also, reviews and applies standards for prioritized treatment of Criminal Rule 4(b) motions for trial within seventy days.

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.

Wilson v. Myers, No. 71S03-1305-DR-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 5, 2013).

November 7, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Trial court abused its discretion in ordering one parent to hand over two children to another parent without a proper evidentiary hearing and with no mention that doing it was in accordance with the Indiana Code.

Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc., No. 49S02-1302-CT-89, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 29, 2013).

October 31, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

“An auto dealership’s advertisement of an inexpensive used car as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” is textbook puffery—not actionable as deception or fraud, because a reasonable buyer could not take it as a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But when the dealer has inspected the car and should know it has serious problems, answering a buyer’s question about why it idled roughly by claiming that it “would just need a tune-up” may be actionable as fraud.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 120
  • Go to page 121
  • Go to page 122
  • Go to page 123
  • Go to page 124
  • 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