• 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

In re N.R., No. 21S01-1409-AD-592, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 25, 2014).

September 25, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

“[A]lthough a party forfeits its right to appeal based on an untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal, this untimely filing is not a jurisdictional defect depriving the appellate courts of authority to entertain the appeal.”

Pohl v. Pohl, No. 32S04-1404-DR-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).

September 18, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

“[A]ny maintenance provision in a settlement agreement, regardless of its grounds, is modifiable only if the agreement so provides.”

Hughley v. State, No. 49S04-1406-MI-386, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 9, 2014).

September 18, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

A self-serving, but competent affidavit that contradicted the State’s designated evidence on a material fact was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

T.P. Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, No. 46S03-1405-MI-337, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 3, 2014).

September 4, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

To balance the interests in accessing the special litigation committee’s report in a derivative suit, the Court remanded for “(1) TPO to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents.”

Ind. Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 49S10-1402-TA-79, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 25, 2014).

August 28, 2014 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Company could not deduct foreign-source dividend income when calculating its net operating losses for Indiana tax purposes.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 164
  • Go to page 165
  • Go to page 166
  • Go to page 167
  • Go to page 168
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs