Indiana Court of Appeals

COA reverses juvenile's exploitation adjudication

July 19, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile’s adjudication for exploiting an endangered adult because the state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 17-year-old took advantage of the mentally retarded man.
More

3-step test needed to balance rights

July 15, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana’s victim-advocate privilege is limited by a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today on the matter of first impression.
More

Town lacked needed consents to annex land

July 15, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time whether the waiver of the right to object to, remonstrate against, or appeal an annexation constitutes “consent” to an annexation under Indiana Code.
More

COA: insurer received actual notice from clients

July 14, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The insurance company that provided legal professional liability coverage for the attorney who abandoned his practice and went on a crime spree did receive actual notice of the attorney’s clients’ claims against the insurer, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More

Title company didn't have authority to close real estate deal

July 14, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
For the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has decided that a title insurance agent is not also an agent of the title insurance company with respect to escrow and closing services.
More

Court rules on first impression 'alibi' witness issue

July 13, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A trial court erred in excluding testimony of a defendant’s witnesses on the ground they were alibi witnesses, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in an issue of first impression.
More

Court addresses fine line between traffic stop, arrest

July 9, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a man’s drunk driving and marijuana possession convictions based on police officer conduct, finding that the officer shouldn’t have held a gun and handcuffed him during what could have been a legitimate traffic stop.
More

Man gets new trial because of ineffective counsel

July 8, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
Based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed on direct appeal a man’s domestic battery conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
More

COA: Teen didn't resist law enforcement

July 7, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A teen who refused to stand up or pull up his pants when ordered by a police officer did not resist law enforcement, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More

Use of wrong statute requires reversal of dealing conviction

July 7, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Class A felony conviction of dealing in cocaine because the trial court instructed the jury on an incorrect version of the statute that allows for enhancing dealing convictions.
More

Canine sniff case gets second look, same ruling

July 6, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
On a rehearing petition from the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed today its holding in reversing a conviction based on a traffic stop involving a canine sniff.
More

Court affirms felony nonsupport of a dependent conviction

July 6, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
A man claiming he proved he was unable to pay child support because of his numerous incarcerations did not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals. In its ruling today, the court relied on Becker v. Becker to affirm the man’s conviction of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.
More

District judge asks court to answer certified question

July 2, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana is asking the state’s Supreme Court to accept a certified question in litigation involving the Indiana Products Liability Act.
More

1-year limit toll not extended by appeal

July 1, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The one-year limit to file a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not from the time an appeals court rules on the matter, but must be made within one year after the trial court enters its order, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in an issue of first impression.
More

COA finds fundamental error in juvenile case, again

June 30, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
In a case identical to one it ruled on earlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals found the state violated a juvenile’s right to counsel at her detention hearing.
More

Booking card exception to hearsay rule

June 30, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A booking card created by law enforcement in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process is not subject to the police reports exclusion under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8), the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.
More

Water company not a political subdivision

June 29, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The company that provides the water utility to the City of Indianapolis is not a political subdivision of the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
More

COA balances free speech vs. minor's privacy rights

June 29, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals was faced with competing constitutional rights today: a mother’s right to free political speech versus her daughter’s right to privacy as to whether her father allegedly sexually abused her.
More

COA reverses judgment on 1 cross-claim in library appeal

June 28, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library should be able to pursue a cross-claim against an engineering company for breach of professional standard of care, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More

Appeals court rules on corporate subsidiaries case

June 25, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled against a Bluffton electric company, finding that corporations can’t simply create subsidiaries internally and declare them separate entities in order to avoid paying higher tax rates under state unemployment compensation law.
More

Court rules on appellate counsel issue in child molesting case

June 25, 2010
Michael Hoskins
A decade-old old case from the Indiana Court of Appeals doesn’t apply to child molesting cases, the state’s second highest appellate court has ruled.
More

Justices adopt appellate court findings

June 25, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a pair of short per curiam opinions on Thursday afternoon that adopt what the Indiana Court of Appeals decided on two criminal appeals.
More

Judges affirm elevated drug convictions

June 24, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The state presented sufficient evidence to prove a defendant delivered and possessed methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, so the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed elevating his convictions to a higher felony level.
More

Translated transcripts necessary for jury

June 23, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it admitted transcripts translated into English of drug transactions recorded in Spanish because the jury wouldn’t be able to understand the recording, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
More

Justices dismiss DCS transfer petition

June 23, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court has dismissed a transfer petition filed by the Indiana Department of Child Services because the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the DCS.
More
Page  << 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 >> pager
Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT