• 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

Robertson v. B.O., No. 49A04-1009-CT-528, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2011)

May 27, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can introduce evidence concerning the existence and compensable nature of plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the healthcare provider settling the claim of medical malpractice.

French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)

May 27, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 209
  • Go to page 210
  • Go to page 211
  • Go to page 212
  • Go to page 213
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • 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