• 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

Whittaker v. Whittaker, No. 02A03-1503-DR-7, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, Sept. 21, 2015).

September 21, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

The merits of Husband’s petition for contempt for Wife’s failure to pay sums incorporated in the dissolution decree should have been addressed by the trial court; the obligation was not a fixed money judgment.

Clifton v. McCammack, No. 49S02-1504-CT-228, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 21, 2015).

September 21, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Father of victim of an accident cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, because none of the three circumstantial factors were met; the claimant must demonstrate that the scene viewed was essentially as it was at the time of the incident, that the victim was in essentially the same condition as immediately following the incident, and that the claimant was not informed of the incident before coming upon the scene.

Boyer v. Smith, No. 15S01-1509-CT-526, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 10, 2015).

September 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over an attorney that never practiced law in Indiana and did not seek business from Indiana residents – she had no minimum contacts within or substantial connection to Indiana.

Reef v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 49A05-1501-CC-3, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 11, 2015).

September 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

When a party failed to properly designate evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s award of summary judgment was inappropriate.

Alkhalidi v. Ind. Dept. of Correction, No. 77A01-1406-SC-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be treated as procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect. Because exhaustion of remedies is not an element of plaintiff’s action, the exhaustion requirement is more appropriately considered an affirmative defense and it is the defendant’s burden to prove.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 138
  • Go to page 139
  • Go to page 140
  • Go to page 141
  • Go to page 142
  • 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