• 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

In re: Indiana State Fair Litigation, No. 49S02-1601-CT-51, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Jan. 28, 2016).

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

Indemnity language on back of vendor’s invoice could not be applied retroactively to liabilities predating the invoice; retroactive effect was not “clearly and unequivocally” expressed in invoice language, and could not be inferred from parties’ course of dealing.

Slaybaugh v. State, No. 79S02-1601-CR-28, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Jan. 20, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Fact that juror was Facebook “friends” with relatives of the victim did not establish juror misconduct, when juror testified that she did not know them personally or recognize them in court, and trial court found her testimony truthful.

Garcia v. State, No. 49S05-1505-CR-335, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 21, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Searching contents of pill container, which had already been seized incident to lawful arrest, was reasonable under the Indiana Constitution.

Town of Zionsville v. Town of Whitestown, No. 06S01-1601-PL-36, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 22, 2016).

January 25, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“2014 Zionsville-Perry Reorganization is not prohibited and that Whitestown may not adopt annexation ordinances annexing territory in municipalities that are the result of completed reorganizations under the [Government Modernization] Act.”

Beasley v. State, No. 49S02-1601-CR-20, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 14, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Trial court acted within its discretion under Evid. R. 804(b)(3) to admit murder victim’s hearsay statement that he shot at defendant the night before as a “statement against interest”; statement was unambiguous and had a great “tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability,” even though declarant believed he had acted in self-defense.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 87
  • Go to page 88
  • Go to page 89
  • Go to page 90
  • Go to page 91
  • 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