• 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

Akard v. State, No. 79S02-1009-CR-478, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 9, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

An appellate review increase in defendant’s sentence, while within an appellate court’s authority under Appellate Rule 7(B), is not ordered in this case, particularly since the State agreed that the sentence the trial judge imposed was appropriate.

T.R.W. Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. v. Moore, No. 73S05-0909-CV-404, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 13, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Wrongful death damages for dependent child’s loss of father erroneously included period of father’s projected life span after child would be emancipated; remittitur ordered to correct error. When fault had been erroneously attributed to nonparties, retrial of the fault allocation was required.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.A., No. 62S01-1003-JV-148, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 5, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Evidence to terminate father’s parental rights was insufficient in this case in which the child had not been living with the father.

Hopper v. State, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme, T. Boehm

A defendant seeking to waive counsel and proceed pro se should not only be advised of the dangers of going to trial without a lawyer, as required by Faretta v. California, but should also “be informed that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Baugh v. State, No. 18S04-1007-CR-398, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

October 7, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, Supreme

Defendant could not complain that judge erred by determining sexually violent predator status without expert testimony required by statute, since defense counsel invited the error by stating judge would make the determination based on the “doctors’ reports.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 152
  • Go to page 153
  • Go to page 154
  • Go to page 155
  • Go to page 156
  • 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