• 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

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Riley

“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.

Pfenning v. Lineman, No. 27S02-1006-CV-331, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“ We reject the concept that a participant in a sporting event owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport but adopt instead the view that summary judgment is proper due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport and therefore reasonable as a matter of law.”

Tracy v. Morell, No. 59A01-1009-PL-488, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Sale of tractor with altered identification number was subject to rescission on grounds of mistake and public policy, and buyer was entitled to recovery of payments with interest.

City of Indianapolis, et al v. Armour, et al, No. 49S02-1007-CV-402, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, R. Rucker, Supreme

A city resolution which only forgave outstanding assessment balances, and did not refund assessment money to those that paid the assessment, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Eppl v. DiGiacomo, No. 45A03-1007-SC-402, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2011)

May 6, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Tenant’s mere delivery of the keys is not sufficient to demonstrate that landlord accepted surrender of the premises; thus the end of the month, in a month-to-month tenancy, started the security deposit statute’s 45-day clock for the landlord to provide the itemization of charges against the security deposit.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 208
  • Go to page 209
  • Go to page 210
  • Go to page 211
  • Go to page 212
  • 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