• 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

Aillones v. Minton, No. 82A01-1609-CT-2138, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

No blanket rule prevents a nurse as acting as an expert witness. Nurse practitioner could testify that, in his expert opinion, plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with injuries from an automobile accident.

B&R Oil Co., Inc. v. Stoler, No. 71A04-1603-PL-608, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, M. Bailey

Lessor may not circumvent a lessee’s contractual right of first refusal to purchase the leased premises by submitting a third-party offer to the lessee in which the leased premises are bundled with other property.

Estate of Mills-McGoffney v. Vigo Co. Prosecutor, No. 84A01-1608-MI-1810, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

When a motion for reinstatement of a dismissed case is filed beyond the thirty-day mark for filing an appeal, any subsequent appeal will pertain solely to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying or granting the motion to reinstate.

Ward v. Carter, No. 46A03-1607-PL-1685, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The Department of Correction is required to promulgate rules pursuant to the Administrative Rules and Procedure Act when changing its execution protocol, and its failure to do so means that the changed protocol is void and without effect.

Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs. v. J.D., No. 71A03-1611-JC-2627, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2017).

May 30, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Altice

In a CHINS case, the testimony of three physicians that child’s injuries were non-accidental and indicative of child abuse, plus establishing that time of his birth until his removal child was continuously in his parents’ care, established the elements of the Presumption Statute in order to shift the burden of production to the parents.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 114
  • Go to page 115
  • Go to page 116
  • Go to page 117
  • Go to page 118
  • 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