• 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

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.”

In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV) . . . is not reached when information is protected by an unqualified privilege unless a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights would be violated by enforcing the privilege.” Here, defendant had no Due Process or Sixth Amendment right to avoid the statutory victim advocate privilege, which prevented discovery of the records of a nongovernmental counseling agency.

Crawford v. State, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

“[T]he three-step test for the discoverability of information outlined in State v. Cline (In re WTHR-TV)” applies here to non-privileged video taken by a private entity.

J.M. v. M.A., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Because the statutes are “explicit that in order for a court to rescind a paternity affidavit, paternity testing must exclude the man as the biological father,” “[t]he parties’ words or agreement amongst the parties cannot supplant the statutory requirements.”

  • « 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 170
  • 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