• 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

Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Gurtner, No. 50A03-1407-MI-256, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2015).

February 26, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Trial court was without authority to grant petition for judicial review for a suspended driver’s license for failure to provide proof of financial responsibility following an automobile accident.

Clem v. Watts, No. 60A05-1406-PL-297, N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2015).

February 19, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

An attorney fee lien is not valid if the lien is filed before judgment is entered.

Thomson v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, No. 71A04-1405-CT-246, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 9, 2015).

February 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

No expert was required for the medical malpractice case; common sense and experience is enough to conclude that an arm board should not become detached leaving a patient’s arm dangling for such a period of time that the patient suffers nerve injury.

Miller v. Danz, No. 49A05-1401-PL-45, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2015).

February 12, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

“T.R. 17(F) permits the insertion of the name of a real party in interest ‘at any time.’ In cases where the statute of limitation has expired and the opposing party raises the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, T.R. 15(C) provides the framework for determining whether the complaint against the now-named party, as amended pursuant to T.R. 17(F), relates back.”

In re S.A., __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2015).

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

“If multiple hearings are unavoidable, then the trial court should, if at all possible, refrain from adjudicating the child a CHINS until evidence has been heard from both parents. And if an adjudication is unavoidable before evidence has been heard from the second parent, then the trial court must give meaningful consideration to the evidence provided by the second parent in determining whether the child remains a CHINS.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 157
  • Go to page 158
  • Go to page 159
  • Go to page 160
  • Go to page 161
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 260
  • 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