• 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

Sanjari v. State, No. 20S03-1105-CR-268, __M N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2012).

February 17, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5 permits a separate class D felony conviction for nonsupport of each dependent child, but only one such offense may be enhanced to a class C felony where the unpaid support for one or more of such children is $15,000 or more.”

Adams v. State, No. 29S02-1109-CR-542, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 2, 2012).

February 3, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

To impose the IC 35-48-4-15(a) mandatory license suspension for using a vehicle in the commission of a drug offense, the “State must demonstrate that a defendant made more than an incidental use of a motor vehicle in committing his offense”; evidence defendant “possessed a jar of marijuana by keeping the jar on the floorboard in front of him while he sat in the passenger seat” supported suspension; it was “not a situation in which a defendant merely happened to possess a small bag of marijuana in his pocket without making any direct use of the vehicle to do so.”

Person v. Shipley, No. 20S03-1110-CT-609, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2012).

February 3, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case.

Bennett v. Richmond, No. 20S03-1105-CV-293, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2012).

February 3, 2012 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case.

Hill v. State, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2012).

January 27, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Standard for assessing effective performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the Baum “due-course-of-law” standard, not the two-prong Sixth Amendment Strickland standard.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 140
  • Go to page 141
  • Go to page 142
  • Go to page 143
  • Go to page 144
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 175
  • 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