• 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

Edwards v. Edwards, No. 64A03-1608-DR-1954, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2017).

August 7, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Dissolution court had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pension and retirement benefits after the death of one of the parties to the dissolution.

Tucker v. Tom Raper, Inc., No. 89A01-1702-CC-463, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2017).

August 7, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

The trial court erred in dismissing alleged third-party beneficiaries’ complaint for failing to comply with T.R. 9.2(A) and attaching a written contract to their complaint; third-party beneficiary status is not solely dependent upon a written contract.

In re Paternity of G.G.B.W., No. 49A04-1611-JP-2474, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2017).

July 31, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

When the Agreed Decree of Paternity requires that Child be vaccinated based on her school’s requirements and that Mother is in contempt for submitting the religious objection form to circumvent the parties’ agreement, there is a substantial change in Mother’s ability to communicate and cooperate with Father in advancing Child’s welfare and the trial court should modify legal custody of Child for the limited purpose of making medical decisions concerning vaccinations.

A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, No. 49A02-1610-MH-2286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).

July 24, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

In a mental health commitment, if the respondent is not present at the hearing, the trial court’s determination of whether it should waive the respondent’s presence must be made at the outset of the hearing using evidence establishing that the respondent’s presence would be injurious to his mental health or well-being.

P.S. v. T.W., No. 32A01-1610-PO-2426, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).

July 24, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Trial court was not required to apprise defendant of all possible penalties for violating the protective order and did not violate his due process by requiring GPS monitoring.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 110
  • Go to page 111
  • Go to page 112
  • Go to page 113
  • Go to page 114
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 254
  • 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