• 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

King v. State, No. 49S04-0911-CR-507, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2010)

March 5, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Holds that the crime of attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors can be committed when the harmful matter is sent to a police officer posing as a minor.

Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49S02-0906-CV-00275, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 4, 2010)

March 5, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme

Evidence Rule 803(4)’s hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment applies only to patients’ statements, not to statements of physicians concerning diagnosis or treatment. Holds that recovery of medical expenses requires that “the treatment claimed must be necessary in the sense that it proximately resulted from the wrongful conduct,” and also holds that the “scope of liability” component of proximate cause allows recovery for “necessary” medical treatment even when the result of misdiagnosis or negligent administration.

Griffin v. State, No. 71S03-0907-CR-333, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2010)

February 26, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Addresses the meaning of “briefly” in the drug crime enhancement “defense” that defendant was only “briefly” within one thousand feet of a school, park, etc..

State ex rel. Crain Heating Air Cond. & Refrig., Inc. v. Clark Circuit Court, No. 10S00-0910-OR-500, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

If a ruling involves the granting, modifying, or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction and has not been entered within ten days after the hearing thereon, there has been a delay in ruling and an interested party may immediately praecipe for withdrawal under the procedure provided in Trial Rule 53.1(E); it is not necessary for a party to await the thirty-day period described in Trial Rule 53.1(A) before filing a praecipe for withdrawal.

Bules v. Marshall County, No. 50S03-1001-CV-57, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 27, 2010)

January 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme, T. Boehm

The Indiana Tort Claims Act’s immunity for losses caused by temporary weather conditions during the period of reasonable response to a weather condition lasts at least until the weather condition has stabilized.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 159
  • Go to page 160
  • Go to page 161
  • Go to page 162
  • Go to page 163
  • 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