• 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

Civil

Cosgray v. French Lick Resort & Casino, No. 59A01-1710-CT-2512 ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Hotel did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from a criminal attack by an unknown assailant on their premises.

State v. Neff, No. 18A02-1708-IF-1933, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

An officeholder need not abandon each and every statutory duty before removal from office may be warranted. “[F]ailure, over a period of years, to perform a critical, official and mandatory duty for a clerk-treasurer falls squarely within the confines of Article VI Sections 7 and 8 of the Indiana Constitution and our legislature’s response via the Removal Statute.”

Estate of Staggs v. ADS Logistics Co., LLC, No. 64A03-1708-CT-1961, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2018).

May 14, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Company that warehoused steel coil that became unsecured during travel killing other motorists had no duty to the motorists killed. It is unforeseeable that a warehousing entity’s conduct in warehousing the cargo or in loading the cargo onto another entity’s vehicle at the instruction of the other entity’s driver would result in harm to motorists.

In re J.R. & M.R., No. 80A02-1704-JC-806,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 17, 2018).

April 23, 2018 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

CHINS factfinding hearing must be completed within 60 days or the petition must be dismissed; if the petition is refiled, DCS must submit new evidence regarding conditions at the current time.

In re Adoption and Paternity of K.A.W., No. 31A01-1712-AD-2797 ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 20, 2018).

April 23, 2018 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Although Putative Father registered as a putative father and filed a petition to establish paternity, Putative Father’s consent to adoption was irrevocably implied because he failed to register as a putative father in a timely fashion.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 99
  • Go to page 100
  • Go to page 101
  • Go to page 102
  • Go to page 103
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • 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