• 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

Jensen v. State, No. 02S04-0803-CR-137, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: F. Sullivan, R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

The Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause was not violated by application of the 2006 sexually violent predator lifetime registration requirement to a person required to register as a sex offender for ten years under the law in effect when his sex offenses were committed.

Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., No. 49S02-0805-CV-244 , __N.E.2d__ (Ind., Apr. 28, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

When insured failed for three years to give notice of environmental action against it to insurer, the insurer’s duty to defend never arose during the three years and the insurer need not show any prejudice from the delayed notification.

Lake County Trust Company v. Advisory Plan Commission of Lake County, No. 37S03-0904-CV-192m, __N.E.2d__ (Ind., Apr. 28, 2009)

May 1, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Governmental entities are not immune from sanctions imposed pursuant to Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. Mediated agreement on subdivision plan could not be final until approved by Plan Commission at an open meeting subject to the Open Door statutes.

In re T.S., No. 46S04-0904-JV-160, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 17, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

(1) Indiana Appellate Rule 14.1’s expedited appeals are available to the process of modifying dispositional decrees regarding child placement where a juvenile court does not follow DCS’s recommendation; (2) the juvenile court must accept DCS’s placement recommendations unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the recommendation is “unreasonable” or “contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child”; (3) a finding by the juvenile court that DCS’s recommendation is unreasonable or contrary to the child’s welfare and best interests is reviewed on appeal for clear error; and (4) the juvenile court’s placement determination in this case was not clearly erroneous.

State v. Manuwal, No. 50S05-0805-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

The operating while intoxicated offense applies to an individual driving on his own private property.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 163
  • Go to page 164
  • Go to page 165
  • Go to page 166
  • Go to page 167
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 169
  • 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