• 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

State v. Taylor, No. 46S04-1509-CR-552, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 30, 2016).

April 4, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Police eavesdropping on attorney-client conference was reprehensible and presumptively prejudicial, but under the circumstances did not necessarily warrant suppression of all testimony from officers who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege about the eavesdropping. Presumption of prejudice was rebuttable if State could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each witness’s anticipated testimony was untainted by the misconduct and do so without implicating witnesses’ Fifth Amendment privilege.

State v. Buncich, No. 45S00-1409-PL-587, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 22, 2016).

March 24, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, R. Rucker, Supreme

Consolidation of small voting precincts in Lake County is constitutional, nor is it an impermissible special law or a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

State v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 49S02-1408-PL-00513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 22, 2016).

March 24, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Using the performance standards and indicators provided in the master services agreement, collective breaches were material in light of the agreement as a whole.

Wahl v. State, Nos. 29S04-1510-CR-605 and 29S04-1510-CR-606, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Mar. 15, 2016).

March 21, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, M. Massa, Supreme

Alternate juror interjecting himself into deliberations was presumptively prejudicial, and State failed to rebut the presumption; therefore, new trial was required.

Steele-Giri v. Steele, No. 45S04-1512-DR-00682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 15, 2016).

March 21, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Because of the highly deferential standard of review afforded to trial courts in family law matters and in contempt matters, although the evidence might have supported motion for custody modification, such modification was not required.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 80
  • Go to page 81
  • Go to page 82
  • Go to page 83
  • Go to page 84
  • 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