• 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

Allen v. State, No. 49S05-1601-CR-46, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“[W]hether declining to attribute delay to the defendant for failing to arrange for his transportation from Department of Correction custody and to appear for his trial scheduled for January 23, 2013, or whether attributing such failures to the defendant under Rule (C) and permitting the trial court and the State a reasonable time thereafter to bring the defendant to trial, the defendant was entitled to discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), and his motion should have been granted.”

Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 30S01-1510-MI-626, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Fortville cannot annex land because the town did not need the territory for its development in the reasonably near future.

Siner v. Kindred Hospital LP, No. 49S05-1604-CT-219, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).

May 2, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

In this medical malpractice case, the defendants’ own designated evidence revealed conflicting medical opinions on the element of causation creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Horton v. State, No. 79S02-1510-CR-628, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., April 21, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Defendant’s personal waiver of second-phase jury trial was required; counsel could not waive it on defendant’s behalf, even though defendant had just been through first phase of bifurcated trial.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of prior case file as evidence of defendant’s prior conviction, because file was readily and publicly available and cause number was repeatedly an unambiguously identified on the record; however, better practice would have been to formally enter the relevant documents into the record.

Citizens Action Coalition of Ind. v. Koch, No. 49S00-1510-PL-00607, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2016).

April 25, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

Whether the work product exception within the Indiana Access to Public Records Act applies to the Indiana General Assembly is a non-justiciable question.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 81
  • Go to page 82
  • Go to page 83
  • Go to page 84
  • Go to page 85
  • 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