• 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

Hamilton v. State, No. 49S02-1110-CR-621, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 19, 2011).

October 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme

Defendant’s A felony child molesting sentence is revised from the fifty year maximum to thirty-five years.

Brock v. State, No. 38S02-1101-CR-8, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 18, 2011).

October 21, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Defendant had no opportunity to object to the court’s declaration of a mistrial and accordingly cannot be said to have consented to it by failure to timely object, but the repeated improper comments by defense counsel in trial warranted the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial without defense consent, under the manifest necessity standard.

In re C.G., No. 49S04-1101-JT-4, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2011).

October 13, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Adopts the factors set out in State of West Virginia ex rel. Jaenette H., 529 S.E.2d at 877 (W.Va. 2000) for trial courts to determine whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to attend a hearing on the termination of his or her parental rights.

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.

Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

On rehearing, “we hold that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer,” and “[w]e also emphasize that this holding does not alter, indeed says nothing, about the statutory and constitutional boundaries of legal entry into the home or any other place.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 142
  • Go to page 143
  • Go to page 144
  • Go to page 145
  • Go to page 146
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 173
  • 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