• 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

Strozewski v. Strozewski, No. 29A02-1412-DR-885, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Dissolution was filed in a preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(8), and although preferred venue may lie in more than one county, if an action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted.

Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, No. 49A02-1410-CT-713, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 5, 2015).

June 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

The general rule that owners of domestic animals are liable only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities applies to all domestic animals – even pigs.

State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Earl, No. 36S05-1408-CT-562, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 9, 2015).

June 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Declines to adopt a bright line rule on the admissibility of insurance coverage, but admission of the coverage limit contained within the insurance policy was relevant background information that would help the jury understand the relationship between the parties and the basis for the lawsuit itself in this case.

Richardson v. Richardson, No. 49A02-1410-DR-702, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2015).

June 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

The trial court had the authority to order a visitation order with stepfather, even though a different court had entered an order adjudicating support, custody and parenting time with the biological father.

Levy v. Jackson, No. 29A02-1407-CT-482, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2015).

June 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May, M. Robb

Because the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for plaintiff but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for defendant, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J), and the jury verdict was reinstated.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 145
  • Go to page 146
  • Go to page 147
  • Go to page 148
  • Go to page 149
  • 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