• 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

Johnson v. State, No. 53S01-1106-CR-335, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 8, 2011)

June 10, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

A judge who receives complaints from a defendant that a public defender, known to have been dilatory in other situations, is neglecting the case “must at the very least receive assurances from the public defender’s office that the complaint has been adequately addressed.”

Sloan v. State, No. 18S04-1009-CR-502, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 1, 2011)

June 2, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, S. David, Supreme

“[O]nce concealment has been established, statutes of limitations for criminal offenses are tolled under Indiana Code section 35-41-4-2(h) (2008) until a prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant.”

Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 12, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Affirms trial court refusal to instruct on right to resist illegal police entry of home, as “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Coleman v. State, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 18, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy clause does not preclude State “from retrying a defendant where in the first trial the jury acquitted the defendant of murder with respect to one victim but failed to return a verdict on a charge of attempted murder with respect to another victim.”

Pfenning v. Lineman, No. 27S02-1006-CV-331, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“ We reject the concept that a participant in a sporting event owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport but adopt instead the view that summary judgment is proper due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport and therefore reasonable as a matter of law.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 147
  • Go to page 148
  • Go to page 149
  • Go to page 150
  • Go to page 151
  • 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