• 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

O’Connell v. Clay, No. 25S-MI-34, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 16, 2025).

October 20, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Paternity by estoppel applies to grandparents’ visitation. Grandparent had standing under the Grandparent Visitation Act to petition for visitation with grandchild when custodial mother stipulated to the father’s paternity in an agreed visitation order.

In re E.K., No. 25A-JC-703, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2025).

October 20, 2025 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.

Brown v. Charles Sturdevant Post of the American Legion Post #46, No. 25A-PL-513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025).

October 6, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.

Davidson v. Hammond, No. 25A-SC-879, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 25, 2025).

September 26, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

A small claims court must rule on a defendant’s request for a jury trial before the defendant has to pay the fee to transfer the case to the plenary docket.

Indianapolis Public Trans. Co. v. Bush, No. 25S-CT-245, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 15, 2025).

September 22, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

When a party raises a TR 50(A) argument in a Rule 59(J) motion to correct error, the trial court reviews the evidence as if it were considering a TR 50(A) motion raised before judgment at trial; de novo review is appropriate. When the evidence heard by the jury supports reasonable inferences that defendant was not contributorily negligent, the trial court properly did not disturb the jury verdict.

  • « 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 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