• 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

Stanke v. Swickard, No. 29A02-1412-DR-862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Defendant’s due process rights were violated and the trial court erred in finding defendant in contempt when the motion for contempt citation did not contain detailed factual allegations, clearly and distinctly set forth the facts alleged to constitute contempt, or specify with reasonable certainty the time and place of the facts supporting the allegations of contempt.

Anderson v. Gaudin, No. 07S01-1505-PL-284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”

In re D.B., No. 49A02-1501-JC-48, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, J. Baker

Child’s absent, out-of-state father should be presumed to be a fit and capable parent unless the state proves otherwise.

Cleveland Range, LLC v. Lincoln Fort Wayne Assoc., LLC, No. 02A05-1503-PL-96, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2015).

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

T.R. 27 petition to depose witnesses before the initiation of litigation was within the trial court’s discretion, as there was evidence supporting expectations it might be a party to a suit, it seeks to preserve specifically identified facts probative to a key issue, and declining to permit the depositions could result in a failure or delay of justice based on the age of the witnesses.

Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp., No. 64S04-1504-MF-187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 21, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment under T.R. 60(B)(1) for excusable neglect, but remands to the trial court to reconsider whether equitable reasons support granting the motion under T.R. 60(B)(8).

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 139
  • Go to page 140
  • Go to page 141
  • Go to page 142
  • Go to page 143
  • 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