• 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

Stafford v. Stafford, No. 24A-DC-2457, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2025).

April 22, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Felix

Eliminating all overnights amounts to a restriction on parenting time.

Nardi v. King, No. 25S-PL-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).

March 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff “substantially” prevailed in his APRA suit by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record, even though he received only a portion of all requested records. A plaintiff who has substantially prevailed can recover attorney’s fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims if it is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim.

Hoagland Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake, No. 25S-PL-66, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).

March 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Trial court’s dismissal under TR 12(B)(8) should have been a dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is conclusive of the rights of the parties and is res judicata as to any questions that might have been litigated.

Tingley v. First Financial Bank, No. 24S-PL-299, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2025).

March 3, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Venue statutes do not remove or alter a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which is separate and distinct from a trial court’s consideration of prudential matters.

Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC v. Nagireddy, No. 24S-PL-287, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 19, 2025).

February 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Trial court’s injunction was improper because the plaintiff did not prove they are likely to win their public-nuisance claim alleging defendant’s proposed land use violates the city’s unified development ordinance.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • 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